OT: COVID-19 thread #4

[andrewww]

Exactly, people arent threatened with their livelihoods if they get booked not wearing a seat belt for example. No one ever says “my seatbelt works better if you wear yours”.

I mean it's a moronic example because you getting a vaccine DOES make it safer for other people, you wearing a seat belt doesn't. I'm not sure how you could not understand that.

That said, there laws that everyone has to wear seatbelts just so I don't have to pay your medical bills when you crash and have severe injury. 99% of the hospitalization rate is by the non vacccinated and that cost hits everyone else in their insurance premiums and taxes.

If anything, this is a pandemic of the old, obese and immunocompromised. It is absurd to risk the healthy for the unhealthy, and then demonize/blackmail the healthy while we’re at it. It is absolutely insane to see the demonization of people making a choice best for them.

It absolutely is the worst for those people, but delta has changed the game a bit with that. The risks are much greater for healthy individuals with delta and the risks are much greater than if you get the vaccine even if you are healthy, by a factor of about 10-100.

No one is a demon for not getting a vaccine. Mostly the choice to not get the vaccine is made out of ignorance. Even the people who make arguments against it, the arguments made aren't bad. They are just ignorant. They are ignorant of the actual statistical probability of the various outcomes.

Getting the vaccine is objectively better for you statistically. You saying you are making a choice that is good for you is wrong. You are making a choice you feel good about. That's different. Effectively, not getting the vaccine is a choice that is bad for you. Beyond that, it is also bad for those around you. That is objective fact based on billions of data points. Subjectively, you might feel spectacular about your choice. Odds are if you are young and healthy that you will still be fine with the bad choice. Delta isn't running around with a 10% kill rate or anything. Odds are your bad choice will also turn out fine. Odds are even higher that good choice would turn out fine though.

If we are jabbing people who are at a higher risk of a stroke from the jab than they are of the virus itself, then no it is not ignorant. Where there is risk, there must be choice. If you disagree with this premise, no further discussion is needed because this is a bedrock principle of why many are against mandates. Sorry, a sensationalized pandemic doesnt justify taking away one’s bodily autonomy. Period.

99.98% survival rate across all ages and body types. If that makes me not getting jabbed a bad choice, then I’ll keep making this choice every time. In other words, it is not a bad choice. Maybe someone’s obese parents want to take the jab. By all means they should if that lowers their risk overall. But to generalize a one size fits all approach? Beyond foolish.

Remember, if you believe in the jab…to then say it would work better if others were jabbed is contradictory at best. It means you dont really believe in the jab.

The average person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than “from covid”. In times like this, the inability of the masses to differentiate between absolute vs relative risk is astonishing.

[dougthonus]

If we are jabbing people who are at a higher risk of a stroke from the jab than they are of the virus itself, then no it is not ignorant.

It is ignorant, because you can sum up all the risks of the vaccine and of COVID and you can find that the risks of COVID are an order of magnitude more likely to happen and also have worse outcomes. If there are specific individuals who have different risk factors for one reason or another, then that's a different consideration, but I'm not aware of what those risk factors would be or who those people would be.

Where there is risk, there must be choice. If you disagree with this premise, no further discussion is needed because this is a bedrock principle of why many are against mandates.

Every vaccine you have gotten since birth has a similar type of risk to the COVID vaccine for something which is less deadly, and you did not have a choice (nor did your parents) for the most part.

Sorry, a sensationalized pandemic doesnt justify taking away one’s bodily autonomy. Period.

Except that's not how society works.

99.98% survival rate across all ages and body types.

The mortality rate in the US is 1.6% across all ages and body types, so that would be 98.4% survival rate. However, this assumes that only survival matters which is a pretty poor way of assessing a situation. That number is likely improved considerably by 50% of the country being vaccinated as well.

If that makes me not getting jabbed a bad choice, then I’ll keep making this choice every time. In other words, it is not a bad choice. Maybe someone’s obese parents want to take the jab. By all means they should if that lowers their risk overall. But to generalize a one size fits all approach? Beyond foolish.

Again, you made a statement that isn't backed up by numbers. The numbers you quote are factually incorrect.

Remember, if you believe in the jab…to then say it would work better if others were jabbed is contradictory at best. It means you dont really believe in the jab.

This argument is hilarious because it shows complete ignorance as to how vaccines and infection work. It's like someone made up something that sounds smart enough that the ignorant people who want something to quote can pick it up and say, but it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, because anyone that has spent an hour of their life or done any cursory research on vaccines / infection would simply laugh at this idea.

The average person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than “from covid”. In times like this, the inability of the masses to differentiate between absolute vs relative risk is astonishing.

Except that this isn't true. The death rate of COVID towards a normal healthy adult is 1/10,000. Do you really think that many people are dying in lightning strikes? The risk of serious negative side effects from the vaccine are less than the death rate of COVID on healthy people, and it ignores that the risks of serious side effects of the actual virus on health people are another 10x more likely. You are about 100x more likely to have a severely negative event from COVID than the vaccine as a young healthy person.

If you aren't a young healthy person the odds are way more against you and the choice becomes clearer.

Again, you will probably be fine with your choice. Your odds of a highly negative event are still low (maybe 1/100 vs 1/10000). It doesn't make it a good choice though. Quoting incorrect numbers and repeating factually incorrect arguments and truisms doesn't make it an objectively good choice. You can look at the billions of data points and objectively, getting the vaccine is a better choice. Again, you'll probably be fine, and I hope you (and everyone else who doesn't get the vaccine) is fine and the vast majority of you will be.

[andrewww]

If we are jabbing people who are at a higher risk of a stroke from the jab than they are of the virus itself, then no it is not ignorant.

It is ignorant, because you can sum up all the risks of the vaccine and of COVID and you can find that the risks of COVID are an order of magnitude more likely to happen and also have worse outcomes. If there are specific individuals who have different risk factors for one reason or another, then that's a different consideration, but I'm not aware of what those risk factors would be or who those people would be.

Where there is risk, there must be choice. If you disagree with this premise, no further discussion is needed because this is a bedrock principle of why many are against mandates.

Every vaccine you have gotten since birth has a similar type of risk to the COVID vaccine for something which is less deadly, and you did not have a choice (nor did your parents) for the most part.

Sorry, a sensationalized pandemic doesnt justify taking away one’s bodily autonomy. Period.

Except that's not how society works.

99.98% survival rate across all ages and body types.

The mortality rate in the US is 1.6% across all ages and body types, so that would be 98.4% survival rate. However, this assumes that only survival matters which is a pretty poor way of assessing a situation. That number is likely improved considerably by 50% of the country being vaccinated as well.

If that makes me not getting jabbed a bad choice, then I’ll keep making this choice every time. In other words, it is not a bad choice. Maybe someone’s obese parents want to take the jab. By all means they should if that lowers their risk overall. But to generalize a one size fits all approach? Beyond foolish.

Again, you made a statement that isn't backed up by numbers. The numbers you quote are factually incorrect.

Remember, if you believe in the jab…to then say it would work better if others were jabbed is contradictory at best. It means you dont really believe in the jab.

This argument is hilarious because it shows complete ignorance as to how vaccines and infection work. It's like someone made up something that sounds smart enough that the ignorant people who want something to quote can pick it up and say, but it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, because anyone that has spent an hour of their life or done any cursory research on vaccines / infection would simply laugh at this idea.

The average person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than “from covid”. In times like this, the inability of the masses to differentiate between absolute vs relative risk is astonishing.

Except that this isn't true. The death rate of COVID towards a normal healthy adult is 1/10,000. Do you really think that many people are dying in lightning strikes? The risk of serious negative side effects from the vaccine are less than the death rate of COVID on healthy people, and it ignores that the risks of serious side effects of the actual virus on health people are another 10x more likely. You are about 100x more likely to have a severely negative event from COVID than the vaccine as a young healthy person.

If you aren't a young healthy person the odds are way more against you and the choice becomes clearer.

Again, you will probably be fine with your choice. Your odds of a highly negative event are still low (maybe 1/100 vs 1/10000). It doesn't make it a good choice though. Quoting incorrect numbers and repeating factually incorrect arguments and truisms doesn't make it an objectively good choice. You can look at the billions of data points and objectively, getting the vaccine is a better choice. Again, you'll probably be fine, and I hope you (and everyone else who doesn't get the vaccine) is fine and the vast majority of you will be.

Actually, society does work the way of my body, my choice. Clearly, you believe in tyranny and a one size fits all approach no matter how you justify the circumstances. No further discussion will take place here because we fundametally disagree with each other’s premise. Luckily, I disregard criticism from people I wouldnt take advice from in the first place.

[dougthonus]

And maybe I'll say from a broader perspective, that will probably make me look totally the opposite of what I've said in the past, I do think COVID is overblown and our reaction was overblown. I'd be fine with (and prefer) they remove all restrictions. I'm also okay if they enforce vaccine cards for many things (such as air travel, public transit, public buildings, employment by government, employers choice for their own staff, business choice to enforce or not enforce for patrons), but if they said everyone go live your lives with the risks as you see them, I'm okay with that too.

I argue more with people who say the vaccine isn't a good idea, post incorrect information, misinterpret the information out there, repeat things that are just lies or objectively not true. I'm okay if the government doesn't give everyone a choice in all situations because there are many things in society like that and this one is objectively something that would help society if we did, but I'd also be okay if they do give everyone the choice and just say go about your business because I also agree the risks of COVID towards those whom are vaccinated are low enough.

[dougthonus]

Actually, society does work the way of my body, my choice. Clearly, you believe in tyranny and a one size fits all approach no matter how you justify the circumstances. No further discussion will take place here because we fundametally disagree with each other’s premise. Luckily, I disregard criticism from people I wouldnt take advice from in the first place.

You have choices but not without consqeunces.

As an example, you have the choice to go kill your neighbor, society will enforce consequences on you for it. You have the choice to not pay taxes, society will impose consequences for you on it. You have the choice to not give the measles, MMR, smallpox, Polio, or chicken pox vaccines to your children (you didn't have that choice because your parents made it) but society will impose consequences on you for it.

Right now you have the choice to not get a COVID vaccine with more or less no consequences. It may stay that way or it might not. It may be the case that like many other choices, that the society generates consequences for you if you don't make that choice.

Tyranny is a laughable phrase to use in this scenario though. There is no society that has no rules whatsoever. A rule that you have to get vaccinated against an ongoing pandemic is hardly tyranny from a philosophical standpoint. As I said in my solo post, I'm more or less agnostic towards vaccine restrictions being put in place. If they stop unvaccinated people from participating in many things that are generated by society, then that's fine with me. If they open everything up and say everyone takes their own risks, that's also fine with me.

I'm sure we've both been on the internet to recognize we aren't going to change each other's minds and that's okay. Cheers to free speech.

[samwana]

If we are jabbing people who are at a higher risk of a stroke from the jab than they are of the virus itself, then no it is not ignorant.

It is ignorant, because you can sum up all the risks of the vaccine and of COVID and you can find that the risks of COVID are an order of magnitude more likely to happen and also have worse outcomes. If there are specific individuals who have different risk factors for one reason or another, then that's a different consideration, but I'm not aware of what those risk factors would be or who those people would be.

Where there is risk, there must be choice. If you disagree with this premise, no further discussion is needed because this is a bedrock principle of why many are against mandates.

Every vaccine you have gotten since birth has a similar type of risk to the COVID vaccine for something which is less deadly, and you did not have a choice (nor did your parents) for the most part.

Sorry, a sensationalized pandemic doesnt justify taking away one’s bodily autonomy. Period.

Except that's not how society works.

99.98% survival rate across all ages and body types.

The mortality rate in the US is 1.6% across all ages and body types, so that would be 98.4% survival rate. However, this assumes that only survival matters which is a pretty poor way of assessing a situation. That number is likely improved considerably by 50% of the country being vaccinated as well.

If that makes me not getting jabbed a bad choice, then I’ll keep making this choice every time. In other words, it is not a bad choice. Maybe someone’s obese parents want to take the jab. By all means they should if that lowers their risk overall. But to generalize a one size fits all approach? Beyond foolish.

Again, you made a statement that isn't backed up by numbers. The numbers you quote are factually incorrect.

Remember, if you believe in the jab…to then say it would work better if others were jabbed is contradictory at best. It means you dont really believe in the jab.

This argument is hilarious because it shows complete ignorance as to how vaccines and infection work. It's like someone made up something that sounds smart enough that the ignorant people who want something to quote can pick it up and say, but it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, because anyone that has spent an hour of their life or done any cursory research on vaccines / infection would simply laugh at this idea.

The average person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than “from covid”. In times like this, the inability of the masses to differentiate between absolute vs relative risk is astonishing.

Except that this isn't true. The death rate of COVID towards a normal healthy adult is 1/10,000. Do you really think that many people are dying in lightning strikes? The risk of serious negative side effects from the vaccine are less than the death rate of COVID on healthy people, and it ignores that the risks of serious side effects of the actual virus on health people are another 10x more likely. You are about 100x more likely to have a severely negative event from COVID than the vaccine as a young healthy person.

If you aren't a young healthy person the odds are way more against you and the choice becomes clearer.

Again, you will probably be fine with your choice. Your odds of a highly negative event are still low (maybe 1/100 vs 1/10000). It doesn't make it a good choice though. Quoting incorrect numbers and repeating factually incorrect arguments and truisms doesn't make it an objectively good choice. You can look at the billions of data points and objectively, getting the vaccine is a better choice. Again, you'll probably be fine, and I hope you (and everyone else who doesn't get the vaccine) is fine and the vast majority of you will be.

young and healthy people, especially kids from age of 12-17 are suffering more of the vaccine as they do from the disease. in germany more kids died from the vaccine as opposed to the disease.
you have to dig deep into the official stats because it is hidden beautifully in the depth of the official pei stats here.
so no, i don't agree with you. healthy people have a recovery rate that's above 99% it's a risk i take every time. the risk i take if i take an experimental vaccine is too high for me. i won't now what it'll do until it may be too late. remember pandemrix or earlier contergan, or the vaccines that made women in kenia sterile? thanks but no thanks. i don't trust medicine that gets forced on people without proper knowledge about the longterm risks.



RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

young and healthy people, especially kids from age of 12-17 are suffering more of the vaccine as they do from the disease. in germany more kids died from the vaccine as opposed to the disease.
you have to dig deep into the official stats because it is hidden beautifully in the depth of the official pei stats here.
so no, i don't agree with you. healthy people have a recovery rate that's above 99% it's a risk i take every time. the risk i take if i take an experimental vaccine is too high for me. i won't now what it'll do until it may be too late. remember pandemrix or earlier contergan, or the vaccines that made women in kenia sterile? thanks but no thanks. i don't trust medicine that gets forced on people without proper knowledge about the longterm risks.

\

Your link didn't go through if you posted one. I would love to see it though if true.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e1.htm

FYI, VAERS reported 14 deaths after 8.9 million doses of vaccine given. Those deaths are not necessarily caused by vaccine, just that they occurred after the vaccine. I'm not sure what the adolescent mortality rate is, but 14/8.9m seems like it probably isn't a whole lot further off than normal mortality rate, and still much less than the COVID mortality rate on adolescents and considerably better than 99% (though survivability is greater than 99% for adolescents too).

Also, factual point of correction, the vaccine is no longer labeled as experimental. It is now FDA approved. Also, random note for you, it has also likely now been studied more thoroughly and has more publicly available data on it than any other vaccine ever to exist in the world.

[TheStig]

But I don't get ones like this or the flu vaccine.

I can certainly understand why you would lump vaccines into two categories of permanent immunity worth getting and yearly's not worth getting.

I don't feel it's effective in preventing or killing covid. It is a good preventative treatment for some.

This vastly undersells the impact of the vaccine.

I don't believe in a vaccine that requires the vaccinated to be protected from the unvaccinated.

All vaccines work that way for the most part, it's just that most of the vaccines you get in childhood have 99% of the population take them and aren't trying to prevent the spread of something that is rampant around the country.

I don't want to take a new type of technology and sign away any rights I have in case something bad happens from it. I don't believe I'm at a significant risk.

Also understand the nervousness around both these points, especially at the beginning. Now the results of the vaccine are extraordinarily well studied though.

And in the end, I believe this type of imperfect vaccination will create worse and worse mutations.

Worse mutations and more mutations will come from the virus spreading more which will happen due to less vaccination.

Lastly, I don't like the politicization of this topic.

Agreed.

Remember when it was a conspiracy theory about vaccine mandates and our president wouldn't take "Trumps vaccine". What the hell happened to the party of my body my choice?

I don't remember it ever being viewed as a conspiracy theory that there would be vaccine mandates. You are mandated to take many vaccines and the idea that this might be another isn't a conspiracy. It was a pretty logical outcome that was going to happen. If you told me in April of 2020 that people would be forced to take a COVID vaccine to go to school or to work at large companies I wouldn't have been even remotely surprised by that.

Your body your choice isn't true in many other cases with diseases that aren't rampantly killing people at this exact moment. You have almost certainly been vaccinated for MMR, Smallpox, Polio, and other things whether you wanted to be or not, and the idea that you would be forced to get a vaccine for something that is shutting down the world was a logical outcome. To me, this seems like something people said was a conspiracy theory after the fact and not at the time, but again, this gets into a "they" say its a conspiracy theory or "they" said it wouldn't happen. I'm not part of either they. If you told me it would happen a year and a half ago, I'd have said you're darn right it will.

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's vaccine or which president wasn't going to take it (Trump or Biden) and have no idea what political piece you are referring to there (not saying you're wrong, I'm literally ignorant to what you are referring to, I don't follow a whole lot of politics).

I don't like the tone that people take and the elmination of discussion or personal choice. I believe it's a very slippery slope. Have you heard Don Lemmon speak about the unvaccinated? He wants to strip peoples abilities to work, get around, go shopping, eat..... It's disgusting.

By living in a society, you give up many personal choices (or at least you have consequences for making them pushed upon you by society). Society at large decides which things you have choices about and which you don't. Being forced to take a vaccines for an on-going epidemic disease is pretty far away from the place I'd draw the line on where my concerns over personal freedom are being eroded.

Quite frankly, in an on-going epidemic, I think it is within reason to strip the ability of people to visit public places where they place others at risk when they have a very clear method of reducing that risk massively. Again, vaccines for an on-going epidemic wouldn't be the personal place I would draw the line on such things, but I understand the point of not wanting any lines drawn, but then again, that is the cost of living in any society. Some societies draw them more tightly and some more loosely, and of course we don't really get to choose. It's not like either your or I could trivially say "I didn't choose this set of societal rules" and move to New Zealand with no consequences. We are somewhat born into whatever rules exist where we are born with somewhat limited means of reasonably escaping those rules. In that sense, I can understand why you would also fight to shape the rules of your society to your desired state.

There are certainly a wide number of people whom are against any rules/regulations, think the government is out to get them, and push back against all sorts of things. In many ways, I'm thankful for these people, because while I don't think the government is at the center or evil plots to insert microchips and control people, the government absolutely needs a watchful public pressuring it at all times. Same with erosion of freedoms and other areas. Without people doing that we are constantly under threat.

This isn't one of those situations that I feel needs that type of pressure though. Again, billions of vaccine doses have been given. 100s of millions of COVID cases are out there. This is well studied on both ends, no matter who you are, the vaccine is a lower mathematical risk of bad outcomes for you and a vaccinated population protects everyone better.

yeah, it was a pretty big conspiracy about vaccine passports being required in places. Certainly hasn't happened that way before in any sort of recent history.

I don't really see it as a public good. The vaccinated are still spreaders. This vaccine doesn't really reduce transmitability or kill or prevent the virus. The only real person at risk by not being vaccinated is the unvaccinated.

I'm glad you brought up public safety. Did you know cars kill 3x people a year as the virus? Are we going to be restricting auto travel? Lot's more lives are at stake.

And sorry Doug, the opinion to strip peoples rights for a not very effective (doesn't kill, prevent or eliminate the virus) vaccine is absolutely disgusting to me. Sorry, I won't be visiting this forum for a bit. I'm all for discourse but this an absolutely disgusting, repulsive and preverted thought. I'm very offended that anyone could suggest that in this day in age. It's disturbing to see you prevert the vision of the country and I'm going to say something that can't be taken back. You should personally be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting something like that. We abort more lives in a year than this virus takes. If it's about saving lives........

[dougthonus]

yeah, it was a pretty big conspiracy about vaccine passports being required in places. Certainly hasn't happened that way before in any sort of recent history.

I'm sort of agnostic about this, I don't think it is strictly necessary, but I don't mind it exists either.

The vaccinated are still spreaders. This vaccine doesn't really reduce transmitability or kill or prevent the virus.

But it does, even with delta, you have a very strong chance if vaccinated to not get it at all (ie prevent the virus), every person that doesn't get it, also prevents spreading it, and the people whom do get it get much milder cases and are less likely to spread it with less viral load (though obviously still can spread it).

People for whatever reason have turned this into a binary thing, but it isn't binary. It is on a spectrum. If you are vaccinated and now have a 70% chance of not getting Delta all together, and everyone has that same vaccination, it would radically reduce deaths / spread.

The only real person at risk by not being vaccinated is the unvaccinated.

That isn't true, but they absolutely take the greatest risk, and maybe to a larger point, I think the amount of risk the vaccinated take is small enough to say stop with all the rules (which I think is sort of your point). I just argue about misleading statistics and misinformation when people say the vaccine doesn't work.

I'm glad you brought up public safety. Did you know cars kill 3x people a year as the virus? Are we going to be restricting auto travel? Lot's more lives are at stake.

I agree with this.

And sorry Doug, the opinion to strip peoples rights for a not very effective (doesn't kill, prevent or eliminate the virus) vaccine is absolutely disgusting to me. Sorry, I won't be visiting this forum for a bit. I'm all for discourse but this an absolutely disgusting, repulsive and preverted thought. I'm very offended that anyone could suggest that in this day in age. It's disturbing to see you prevert the vision of the country and I'm going to say something that can't be taken back. You should personally be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting something like that. We abort more lives in a year than this virus takes. If it's about saving lives........

We literally have ton of mandatory vaccines for things that aren't on-going epidemics. To suggest people need to take one in order to participate in society isn't some farfetched thing for me, nor is it out of bounds in terms of scope with what you have already done in your lives (or likely done with your kids).

Sorry that the topic is so offensive to you.

Again, it's not a strong issue to me. I think COVID is overblown now, and I'm fine removing all restrictions and people live with the consequences of their choices (I'm not rooting for that mind you, I think it's disgusting when people root for it, it's just what will happen based on the virus). As you say though, people die from all kinds of reasons, and the people who are young and healthy probably won't suffer much consequences and hopefully those that aren't do a better assessment in general of their risks, and maybe it won't matter at all.

At the same time, to me the freedom given up here is irrelevant, and being asked to take a vaccine is irrelevant and not some terrible imposition. You already had to take something like 20 vaccines to get into public school, so ramping it up to 21 isn't some massive erosion of freedom that people have politicized it into being. This is something you already have had to do to be in society and is an established norm in our society that already has plenty of mandatory vaccines for things that aren't even present threats but are maintained only to stop something from coming back.

To put it in perspective, the chicken pox vaccine is now mandatory in all 50 states and chicken pox kills 1 in 100,000 people and has far less cases. The chicken pox vaccine also has been given fewer doses than COVID vaccines and has been studied less and chicken pox isn't spreading at the current rate of COVID or causing the same types of problems. Maybe you are also massively against the chicken pox vaccine for all I know, but a mandatory COVID vaccine is not out of bounds with other things in our country or general societal rules.

[LateNight]

“I hate the government so I’m going to risk dying of covid” is one of the dumbest positions ever.

In the era of Q, the intentionally fraudulent attack on democratic elections, and defense of a murderous insurrection, it’s becoming very challenging to rank the severity of stupidity.

These are revealing times, and the revelation is that America is really **** stupid.

It’s been eye opening to say the least. A lot of people dying to cut their nose off to spite their face.

[LateNight]

Young and healthy people, especially kids from age of 12-17 are suffering more of the vaccine as they do from the disease. in germany more kids died from the vaccine as opposed to the disease.
you have to dig deep into the official stats because it is hidden beautifully in the depth of the official pei stats here.
so no, i don't agree with you. healthy people have a recovery rate that's above 99% it's a risk i take every time.

Can you please post data if you’re going to make huge claims like that? I can’t find any article supporting what you said about teen vaccines in Germany.

I can find one example of a teen in Italy developing blood clots and you’ll find that link easily if you search for it. Meanwhile almost every medication around can cause blood clots - as does sitting down for too long, eating fast food or taking birth control.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vax-deaths-vs-covid-deaths/

[Almost Retired]

young and healthy people, especially kids from age of 12-17 are suffering more of the vaccine as they do from the disease. in germany more kids died from the vaccine as opposed to the disease.
you have to dig deep into the official stats because it is hidden beautifully in the depth of the official pei stats here.
so no, i don't agree with you. healthy people have a recovery rate that's above 99% it's a risk i take every time. the risk i take if i take an experimental vaccine is too high for me. i won't now what it'll do until it may be too late. remember pandemrix or earlier contergan, or the vaccines that made women in kenia sterile? thanks but no thanks. i don't trust medicine that gets forced on people without proper knowledge about the longterm risks.

\

Your link didn't go through if you posted one. I would love to see it though if true.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e1.htm

FYI, VAERS reported 14 deaths after 8.9 million doses of vaccine given. Those deaths are not necessarily caused by vaccine, just that they occurred after the vaccine. I'm not sure what the adolescent mortality rate is, but 14/8.9m seems like it probably isn't a whole lot further off than normal mortality rate, and still much less than the COVID mortality rate on adolescents and considerably better than 99% (though survivability is greater than 99% for adolescents too).

Also, factual point of correction, the vaccine is no longer labeled as experimental. It is now FDA approved. Also, random note for you, it has also likely now been studied more thoroughly and has more publicly available data on it than any other vaccine ever to exist in the world.

In my experience it is likely that side effects from the Covid vaccines are underreported via VAERS. It is the same thing with side effects that occur in response to standard medications given in my hospitals. Say for example I see Vancomycin discontinued for an injection reaction, such as red man syndrome. I call the RN involved in that patient's care to get a few general details. Then I remind them to go into the electronic medical record to fill out the appropriate report. As it happens those on line reports can take 30 minutes of more to fill out completely. I'm not the report police, and I don't work every day, so I don't personally follow up very often as to whether the nurse followed through. If I review that patient's chart a day later and see no report filed I might follow up with the nurse. She'll tell me she had no time during her shift to complete the report and that Overtime to complete it was denied for budgetary reasons. I'm too busy to do it for her. I'm looking over the charts and orders for hundreds of patients. So it falls through the cracks. The same thing is happening with the VAERS reporting. Overburdened health care workers are not documenting every side effect, mild or serious, that are being observed from these jabs. To complete the online reporting is time consuming and tedious. One of my hospitals is operating with at least 10% traveling nurses due to RN burnout. Work loads are dangerously high. And at this point it isn't rally even Covid related. We are making up for a backlog of elective surgeries that were deferred for a month while we had the Delta spike. We will probably stay busy through year end as people try to get their procedures done during this benefit year if they have met their deductibles, etc. I don't know what the actual true numbers of jab recipients who had bad reactions, but I can say with absolute certainty gleaned from experience that VAERS does not pick even the majority of side effects that under ideal conditions should be reported.

[chifan1798]

Instead of government mandates let’s let the market fix it

Allow insurance companies to not have to pay for Procedures related to covid if the person was not vaccinated-unless they enroll check the non vaccinated box and pay an appropriate premium. Just like smokers/health and life insurance

I read about a 25 yo denier with a double lung transplant. The rest of his short life will be littered with bills.

If people have to pay and face the logical /fiscal consequences of their actions /inactions -it is fair IMO

Much better than mandates
I’m not saying don’t treat-but treat at their own expense in higher premiums.

And as I understand they are already sucking more resources in using federal provided (ie we all pay for it) monoclonal antibodies-yet they have the gall to say they don’t want to pay taxes for the $35 shot-but the $2000 antibodies bag should be covered.

I’d say that also should be a reimbursement from insurance and based on status they can decide to cover or not.

Whatever the case my point is just solve it with money/market forces. I don’t think a certain group will ever be convinced so just make them pay a fair share for their convictions.

Again, why not promote safe prophylaxis for low risk cohorts. Vit D, quercetin, zinc and tumeric. And one Ivermectin tablet per week. Vaccinate those with serious co-morbidities and the elderly that wish to be vaccinated of their own free will. A young person with adequate Vitamin D levels around 50 ng/ml who takes a zinc supplement has an extremely low chance of getting a serious case. They would be far more likely to get a mild case or even a viral exposure without symptoms than ending up needed a double lung transplant. Exposure with mild illness provides far more effective immunity down the road than these jabs. That is now Indisputable. If widespread prophylaxis worked in Uttar Pradesh in India, where community hygeine, population density and poverty are far worse than in the USA...why couldn't it be tried here in one or two states. The prophylactic regimen is relatively cheap and readily available (except for occasional supply shortfalls for quercetin).

But your idea of adjusted insurance premiums has merit. I'd be willing to pay a little more for the right to make my own decisions on whether to get booster jabs. I've long thought that smoking and obesity should be penalized via insurance premiums. I know my employer gives me a $650 per year credit on my health insurance premiums for being nicotine free ($25 bucks a week). I wish it did the same for maintaining a BMI under 25. Obesity make one so much more prone to Type 2 Diabetes and the mortality figures on the obese who catch Covid is also far worse that ideal weight range cohorts.

Well, there are a few problems with that:

1. First, patients are very non compliant. We tell our patients all the time, what recommendations we have, and most people don’t follow through. Even when we try to avoid starting them on medications, we provide advice of certain things that they can do in order to try and avoid medication, however when they are seen 3-6 months later, the patients usually haven’t followed through on any intervention. Next step is usually medication, which again, many people take it when they want, or not as prescribed. So, even before this vaccine debate, many patients don’t listen to their doctors, but you would think that with something as easily transmissible and dangerous, that people would make the exception.

2. Some of those things you are recommended, are not FDA approved for use in general, not just COVID. So you have a vaccine that is FDA approved for a specific purpose, but people should take something that isn’t? What sense does that make, if you’re supposed to be trying to make an informed decision? It sounds hypocritical.

3. FDA approval also kind of ties in with my third point…women. If you’re talking about a young and healthy population, you’re talking about people in their 40’s and younger. In women, that is considered child bearing age. Pregnant women are extra vulnerable to many medications, both prescribed or over the counter, so it becomes a risk assessment with them. Considering the numbers of planned and unplanned pregnancies, that women in this age group have, I don’t think you’re going to have many ObGyn physicians, or other specialties having women take those supplements over the vaccine. I know it’s mostly men on here so it’s not on your mind as much…and maybe I make sure I pay attention to that because I’m a female physician that is of child bearing age, but this group can’t just take stuff all willy nilly. Yes, many of the vitamins would be ok, but Ivermectin hasn’t been studied in pregnant women, just like a lot of drugs. Quercetin isn’t even FDA approved. So about half of the population wouldn’t fall into the category to recommending what you’re suggesting.

4. Lastly, just like we try to avoid overprescribing antibiotics when unnecessary, because it promotes bacterial resistance, who’s to say that the same thing couldn’t happen with Ivermectin. Trying to prescribe medication to people who don’t need it for it’s true purpose, can potentially lead to resistance by the organism that we treat it for.

[drosEshe]

probbaly been asked before, are ALL BULLS PLAYER vaccinated? or we have our own kyrie and wiggins?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chifan1798]

the actual risk of dying of covid for healthy people is not very high. and so it is everyone's personal decision what to do or what not to do. it's got nothing to do with hating the government.

A question of whether people should be able to make decisions that have a very negative impact on society is more or less the fundamental point. Not being safe with a disease that kills a huge number of people and has long term negative impact on 10x as many more impacts a lot of others regardless of your personal beliefs.

Fundamentally, part of what living in society means is that you agree to live under rules that are good for the whole and everyone benefits. Ignoring COVID for a second, you can think of seat belt rules, drinking and driving rules, paying taxes, bike helmets, or whatever laws you want to add. This is just another topic of whether the good for society outweighs the bad. We don't all agree with all the rules, but the outcome of living under them is better than not.

A disease that kills around 1% of the population may sound small, but cancer kills 1/10th as many people.

Huh? The majority of people who are dying are old with underlying conditions. This isn't killing very many health and normal people.

And 1%? There are 330 million people in the us and 688k deaths. That's .002%. And again, it's a lot of older people with underlying conditions that were not long for this world. And in the begining of the pandemic when they were not prepared and had no clue how to treat it.

And I'd just like to add people who don't wear their seat belt, or drive drunk or skip taxes or don't wear their helmet, it's not being proposed to ban them from work, supermarkets, public transport, planes, resturants, public events in mass as preventative measure. They either get caught or they don't and if they do, most of those things are just fineable. Not some sort of ban from society. You're getting very dangerously close to becoming china and implementing a social credit score with that one.

That's not how mortality rate is calculated. It always uses the number of cases as the denominator, not the total population of the country. So yes, it's 1%. And I think we hit the 600k mark in a year, so if going by previous years of mortality data, COVID would in fact have killed more people than all cancer combined.

[chifan1798]

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who won’t get the vaccine out of spite for the current administration. It may not be the majority of the anti vaccine population, but there is a decent amount who have truly politicized it. Don’t be naive to think that it’s not that way for some.

Also, it’s a shame that people think this pandemic and the vaccine is all about their right to have a personal choice, as opposed to public health. Vaccines aren’t even the only argument…people argue about masks, social distancing and capacity limitations. People ignore that there are consequences that are not death that could happen even if healthy, and also ignore the potential cost to their own family, friends, or society as a whole.

Huh? We've had Trump and Biden in office while the vaccine available. How is it in spite of the current administration when it was available under both ends of the political spectrum? You'll just like making things political.

No, I have seen the interviews with people on the news, when the reporters go into the community, and as people why they won't take the vaccine, and there have been some people that say it's because they don't want to take it because they think that Trump should have won, and they're doing it pretty much out of spite. I'm sure you can google it. Besides, even prior to the election, you heard lots of Democrats say they wouldn't take it because they don't trust Trump...so what makes you think the opposite isn't true?

[dougthonus]

In my experience it is likely that side effects from the Covid vaccines are underreported via VAERS. It is the same thing with side effects that occur in response to standard medications given in my hospitals.

Is this like when based on your experience Delta was caused by vaccines despite occurring in India in 2020 where there were no vaccines or how in your experience, despite being vaccinated, you are quite certain that it is Ivermectin that has stopped you from getting COVID rather than a vaccine against COVID?

[dice]

It absolutely is. He's saying by getting the jab, you can defeat covid. Something that hasn't proven true so far. But he is trying to sell his vaccine to the unvaccinated under this premise. It is completely self serving.

indefinite boosters would be self-serving. if his comments help to successfully end COVID it will have benefitted his company in the short run, but...

of course, corporations do tend to be obsessed with the next quarter's profits

feb. 24, 2020 - moderna's share price closed at $18.59

feb 25, 2020 - company announces vials of its vaccine would be shipped to NIAID for more research, 42 days after the virus's sequence had been identified. shares close at $23.76. COVID-19 deaths had not yet hit america

today moderna trades at around $430 a share

pfizer and JNJ share prices haven't benefitted much from the vaccine

Pfizer is up about 5% from its pre-covid price which is actually WAY below the typical stock market. It's actually been a huge loser. I own a little bit of Pfizer stock. Not sure what JnJ is doing, but JnJ isn't primarily a medical drug company and they aren't shipping their vaccine in the same quantities so my expectation is the vaccine would be irrelevant for them.

Without knowing the specifics, my guess is that Moderna has a much, much smaller medical profile than Pffizer and the vaccine made a much bigger percentage of their profits whereas with Pfizer it's likely a more or less irrelevant part.

doesn't hurt that virtually nobody had heard of moderna prior to the pandemic. now most will never forget it

[dice]

If we are jabbing people who are at a higher risk of a stroke from the jab than they are of the virus itself, then no it is not ignorant.

It is ignorant, because you can sum up all the risks of the vaccine and of COVID and you can find that the risks of COVID are an order of magnitude more likely to happen and also have worse outcomes. If there are specific individuals who have different risk factors for one reason or another, then that's a different consideration, but I'm not aware of what those risk factors would be or who those people would be.

Where there is risk, there must be choice. If you disagree with this premise, no further discussion is needed because this is a bedrock principle of why many are against mandates.

Every vaccine you have gotten since birth has a similar type of risk to the COVID vaccine for something which is less deadly, and you did not have a choice (nor did your parents) for the most part.

Sorry, a sensationalized pandemic doesnt justify taking away one’s bodily autonomy. Period.

Except that's not how society works.

99.98% survival rate across all ages and body types.

The mortality rate in the US is 1.6% across all ages and body types, so that would be 98.4% survival rate. However, this assumes that only survival matters which is a pretty poor way of assessing a situation. That number is likely improved considerably by 50% of the country being vaccinated as well.

If that makes me not getting jabbed a bad choice, then I’ll keep making this choice every time. In other words, it is not a bad choice. Maybe someone’s obese parents want to take the jab. By all means they should if that lowers their risk overall. But to generalize a one size fits all approach? Beyond foolish.

Again, you made a statement that isn't backed up by numbers. The numbers you quote are factually incorrect.

Remember, if you believe in the jab…to then say it would work better if others were jabbed is contradictory at best. It means you dont really believe in the jab.

This argument is hilarious because it shows complete ignorance as to how vaccines and infection work. It's like someone made up something that sounds smart enough that the ignorant people who want something to quote can pick it up and say, but it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, because anyone that has spent an hour of their life or done any cursory research on vaccines / infection would simply laugh at this idea.

The average person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than “from covid”. In times like this, the inability of the masses to differentiate between absolute vs relative risk is astonishing.

Except that this isn't true. The death rate of COVID towards a normal healthy adult is 1/10,000. Do you really think that many people are dying in lightning strikes? The risk of serious negative side effects from the vaccine are less than the death rate of COVID on healthy people, and it ignores that the risks of serious side effects of the actual virus on health people are another 10x more likely. You are about 100x more likely to have a severely negative event from COVID than the vaccine as a young healthy person.

If you aren't a young healthy person the odds are way more against you and the choice becomes clearer.

Again, you will probably be fine with your choice. Your odds of a highly negative event are still low (maybe 1/100 vs 1/10000). It doesn't make it a good choice though. Quoting incorrect numbers and repeating factually incorrect arguments and truisms doesn't make it an objectively good choice. You can look at the billions of data points and objectively, getting the vaccine is a better choice. Again, you'll probably be fine, and I hope you (and everyone else who doesn't get the vaccine) is fine and the vast majority of you will be.

Actually, society does work the way of my body, my choice.

you are required to be vaccinated to go to school and join the military, so...nope

Clearly, you believe in tyranny and a one size fits all approach no matter how you justify the circumstances.

clearly you believe in false data

[dice]

I'd also be okay if they do give everyone the choice and just say go about your business because I also agree the risks of COVID towards those whom are vaccinated are low enough.

the problem for me is that it's not all about COVID risk. i've said from the very beginning that, short of overflowing hospitals, i'm open to a wide range of ideas for dealing with this as a society. unfortunately, in some places hospitals are back to overflowing, restricting the ability to treat people with non-COVID illnesses. that's unacceptable. so while part of me is tired of wearing a mask in order to protect those who have chosen for no good reason not to be vaccinated, i understand why i am asked to do so. and part of me even cares about those who have been manipulated into thinking that being vaccinated is a bad idea