All things CoronaVirus

[NattyBohChamps04]

Conscientious objector

Take Marta. It's Smarta.

They serving Mr. Boh down there yet?

[Carroll81]

no. 5 to 11 year olds have been 24% fully (2 doses) vaccinated for covid. 32% have gotten one shot, and it's not climbing fast.

we're at about 30 something boosted.

the polls told you we weren't getting fully vaxxed before we even knew what end was up. if we don't get a more deadly variant, it's not changing much.

edit: 91 million boosted as of feb 4.
that's 43% of the fully vaxxed pop.
that's 27.5% of the u.s. population.
that's 32% of 12 or over eligible quite some time ago.

Why do you think we're 90%+ vaxxed for MMR etc, and nowhere near that for three different vaccines?

You don't think it's the media (which includes the internet)?

Remember, we can't leave out the context that if an American asks their doctors, 100% of them will tell their charges to take the vaccine if they don't have some condition to preclude it.

So America's personal doctors are 100% behind full vaccination. So what's keeping that from happening, if it's not media-internet disinformation?

so you've named now 2 declarative statements that i have absolutely no idea how you know these for a fact.

sticking with just one of them... what is your explanation for us being at 24% for kids 5-11 vs. 75%? adults? who exactly are these people listening to? that it's right for them, but not their kids?

Some parents may be looking at the hospitalization/deaths for 5-11 year olds and making the determination that the covid risk for that age group is low compared to their own risk profile.

[kramerica.inc]

no. 5 to 11 year olds have been 24% fully (2 doses) vaccinated for covid. 32% have gotten one shot, and it's not climbing fast.

we're at about 30 something boosted.

the polls told you we weren't getting fully vaxxed before we even knew what end was up. if we don't get a more deadly variant, it's not changing much.

edit: 91 million boosted as of feb 4.
that's 43% of the fully vaxxed pop.
that's 27.5% of the u.s. population.
that's 32% of 12 or over eligible quite some time ago.

Why do you think we're 90%+ vaxxed for MMR etc, and nowhere near that for three different vaccines?

You don't think it's the media (which includes the internet)?

Remember, we can't leave out the context that if an American asks their doctors, 100% of them will tell their charges to take the vaccine if they don't have some condition to preclude it.

So America's personal doctors are 100% behind full vaccination. So what's keeping that from happening, if it's not media-internet disinformation?

so you've named now 2 declarative statements that i have absolutely no idea how you know these for a fact.

sticking with just one of them... what is your explanation for us being at 24% for kids 5-11 vs. 75%? adults? who exactly are these people listening to? that it's right for them, but not their kids?

A gentleman at work said, “I’m old. I don’t know or care what happens to me in 20 years. If I were you or your kids, That’s a different conversation.”

I can see his point. Can you definitively say something will have no adverse effects in 20+ years until it’s been used for 20+ years?

They have not fully figured out dosing or effectiveness yet. Lots of “educated guesses” these days.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna15730

Where has Frances Oldham Kelsey gone?

[old salt]

Naming an mRNA vaccine? Who cares?

See...this is how a rational mind works: I don't know the difference between the mRNA vaccine and the old Polio vaccine.

That logic works perfectly....sadly, we just do not know with certainty what tomorrow may bring, let alone a new medical bio technology will do to each of us in 5-10+ years; we do it based on blind faith and trust, and some just are incapable/uncomfortable to go there. Which is why mandating is such a touchy subject.

Mandating was clearly, plainly not a touchy subject for decades leading up to 2020.

If what you say is true, we wouldn't have one single vaccine mandate on the books in any State. What do we have, instead? That's right, my man...we have vaccine mandates in every Single State. 100%. All of them.

So how do you explain that? You can't.

They were not introduced & administered to millions of people under an Emergency Use Authorization.
They were not based on a new technology like MRNA.

Nobody can know the long term effects because they have not been in use that long.
Given my age, I figure it's worth the uncertainty for me.
If I was under 40, I might feel differently.

[Farfromgeneva]

no. 5 to 11 year olds have been 24% fully (2 doses) vaccinated for covid. 32% have gotten one shot, and it's not climbing fast.

we're at about 30 something boosted.

the polls told you we weren't getting fully vaxxed before we even knew what end was up. if we don't get a more deadly variant, it's not changing much.

edit: 91 million boosted as of feb 4.
that's 43% of the fully vaxxed pop.
that's 27.5% of the u.s. population.
that's 32% of 12 or over eligible quite some time ago.

Why do you think we're 90%+ vaxxed for MMR etc, and nowhere near that for three different vaccines?

You don't think it's the media (which includes the internet)?

Remember, we can't leave out the context that if an American asks their doctors, 100% of them will tell their charges to take the vaccine if they don't have some condition to preclude it.

So America's personal doctors are 100% behind full vaccination. So what's keeping that from happening, if it's not media-internet disinformation?

so you've named now 2 declarative statements that i have absolutely no idea how you know these for a fact.

sticking with just one of them... what is your explanation for us being at 24% for kids 5-11 vs. 75%? adults? who exactly are these people listening to? that it's right for them, but not their kids?

Some parents may be looking at the hospitalization/deaths for 5-11 year olds and making the determination that the covid risk for that age group is low compared to their own risk profile.

That’s not a really good cost/benefit analysis though.

Expected outcome = probability of event * expected severity of outcome from event. That expected outcome doesn’t have to be total and absolute safety but you have to make the decision that drives down the negative expected outcome as low as possible for children.

[Bart]

Naming an mRNA vaccine? Who cares?

See...this is how a rational mind works: I don't know the difference between the mRNA vaccine and the old Polio vaccine.

That logic works perfectly....sadly, we just do not know with certainty what tomorrow may bring, let alone a new medical bio technology will do to each of us in 5-10+ years; we do it based on blind faith and trust, and some just are incapable/uncomfortable to go there. Which is why mandating is such a touchy subject.

Mandating was clearly, plainly not a touchy subject for decades leading up to 2020.

If what you say is true, we wouldn't have one single vaccine mandate on the books in any State. What do we have, instead? That's right, my man...we have vaccine mandates in every Single State. 100%. All of them.

So how do you explain that? You can't.

They were not introduced & administered to millions of people under an Emergency Use Authorization.
They were not based on a new technology like MRNA.

Nobody can know the long term effects because they have not been in use that long.
Given my age, I figure it's worth the uncertainty for me.
If I was under 40, I might feel differently.

Yes and no. The first polio vaccine was introduced in 1950 and tested against polio in institutionalized children (nice...no informed consent).
Jonas Salk jumps into the limelight in 1952 as polio cases surge in children. He does a small test on institutionalized children like the original vaccine(sign of the times....). Then injects his family and starts a massive RCT trial of 1.3 million children in 54. After the results were released the Americas started on the path toward licensure the very day results were released. So the trial was in 54 and the vaccine adopted in 55.

There were certainly no long term studies on this. There were also no long term studies on the manufacturing process which led to the Cutter incident and stoppage of the vaccination program (thought they did not follow Salk's guidelines). The program started going again when the problem was figured out.

Mom's and Dad's seemed to jump at this vaccine. Unproven new technology and all. Why? The virus was killing their kids.

Makes me wonder what would the vaccine uptake be for COVID if the virus targeted children and not predominantly the old and those with comorbidities. My guess.......and it is only a guess.......vaccine uptake would be much higher.

[wgdsr]

and it's my understanding parents were scared witless. media. and word of mouth.

[MDlaxfan76]

and it's my understanding parents were scared witless. media. and word of mouth.

perhaps not "witless"

[Peter Brown]

Nothing like goalpost moving…

First it is EA that is not acceptable, then needs 10 years.

The flu vaccine I got this year was just approved in 2020. Should I be worried it has not been a full 10 years? And they reformulate the flu vaccine EACH year!

The fact is the vaccine is MUCH LESS risky than the disease. It has been proven to do all sorts of positive things to keep people healthy and alive, and you are worried about some yet to be seen side effects?

Something tells me there is a great breakdown in logic here…

Yup, it's all an act. And a flip-flop as people like PB were cheering on these vaccines before they came out.

I also asked a while back if anyone could show me any vaccine that causes issues 6 months down the road or later. Crickets.

I'm not talking about issues that show up immediately that may last long term. I'm talking about issues that do not present (show up) until far down the road.

It just doesn't happen, at least that I could find. These vaccines already have very low rates of side effects, especially compared to the actual disease.

You're still gonna have people questioning the safety of these after we have 10 years of data. The first mRNA vaccines in human trials incidentally were 9 years ago. First animal use was 30 years ago.

The whole thing is an act.

Views can change, you know that? One thing I’m not sure anyone focused on initially (at least I didn’t) was the fact that the manufacturers bore no liability for the vaccines. I don’t know when that became common knowledge, but honestly when I became aware, that seemed to be a marker for me to start questioning what was going on. I’m a capitalist, and liability keeps folks honest.

Bear in mind, I’m not anti vaccine, I’m anti-mandate. It bemuses me that Democrats refuse to acknowledge that very critical dividing line. Why would you care if anyone else is vaccinated? For all I or you know, the unvaccinated will be the ones proven correct in the end.

Yes, most vaccines evidence bad outcomes relatively fast, except mRNA isn’t the old vaccines, it’s untested in this instance for Covid. We don’t know what will occur here. How come you’re so easily willing to accept “long Covid” but not “long bad vaccine effects”?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Nothing like goalpost moving…

First it is EA that is not acceptable, then needs 10 years.

The flu vaccine I got this year was just approved in 2020. Should I be worried it has not been a full 10 years? And they reformulate the flu vaccine EACH year!

The fact is the vaccine is MUCH LESS risky than the disease. It has been proven to do all sorts of positive things to keep people healthy and alive, and you are worried about some yet to be seen side effects?

Something tells me there is a great breakdown in logic here…

Yup, it's all an act. And a flip-flop as people like PB were cheering on these vaccines before they came out.

I also asked a while back if anyone could show me any vaccine that causes issues 6 months down the road or later. Crickets.

I'm not talking about issues that show up immediately that may last long term. I'm talking about issues that do not present (show up) until far down the road.

It just doesn't happen, at least that I could find. These vaccines already have very low rates of side effects, especially compared to the actual disease.

You're still gonna have people questioning the safety of these after we have 10 years of data. The first mRNA vaccines in human trials incidentally were 9 years ago. First animal use was 30 years ago.

The whole thing is an act.

Views can change, you know that? One thing I’m not sure anyone focused on initially (at least I didn’t) was the fact that the manufacturers bore no liability for the vaccines. I don’t know when that became common knowledge, but honestly when I became aware, that seemed to be a marker for me to start questioning what was going on. I’m a capitalist, and liability keeps folks honest.

Bear in mind, I’m not anti vaccine, I’m anti-mandate. It bemuses me that Democrats refuse to acknowledge that very critical dividing line. Why would you care if anyone else is vaccinated? For all I or you know, the unvaccinated will be the ones proven correct in the end.

Yes, most vaccines evidence bad outcomes relatively fast, except mRNA isn’t the old vaccines, it’s untested in this instance for Covid. We don’t know what will occur here. How come you’re so easily willing to accept “long Covid” but not “long bad vaccine effects”?

Because as the spread continues, hospitals fill up and the economy seizes up and we all suffer. If other people weren’t impacted, nobody would care. Let ‘em die.

[wgdsr]

maybe a lot of it is some folks want to have or rely on the government and joe biden to protect them. i don't rely on joe.

[Bart]

maybe a lot of it is some folks want to have or rely on the government and joe biden to protect them. i don't rely on joe.

Biden or Rogan?

[wgdsr]

maybe a lot of it is some folks want to have or rely on the government and joe biden to protect them. i don't rely on joe.

Biden or Rogan?

trudeau. middle name.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Yes, most vaccines evidence bad outcomes relatively fast, except mRNA isn’t the old vaccines, it’s untested in this instance for Covid. We don’t know what will occur here. How come you’re so easily willing to accept “long Covid” but not “long bad vaccine effects”?

Please inform us of the incident rates of both long covid and long bad vaccine effects and I'll tell you what and why I accept one being more serious than the other.

I'll wait...

[Peter Brown]

Yes, most vaccines evidence bad outcomes relatively fast, except mRNA isn’t the old vaccines, it’s untested in this instance for Covid. We don’t know what will occur here. How come you’re so easily willing to accept “long Covid” but not “long bad vaccine effects”?

Please inform us of the incident rates of both long covid and long bad vaccine effects and I'll tell you what and why I accept one being more serious than the other.

I'll wait...

Given that the vaccine and virus are not even two years old, I don’t accept the premise of either Long Covid or Long Negative Side Effects. Conversely, I’m also not willing to say that there won’t be negative side effects; we won’t guarantee the safety of the vaccine today, no different than executives from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J who assume zero liability for a drug making them billions.

I’ll use ten years as a better time marker for the true safety of the mRNA vaccine and whether long Covid is real or imagined.

A more sound argument for you might be, ‘even if mRNA causes a third arm to grow out of our rib cages in ten years, the fact that it appears to diminish mortality today versus not taking it is worth the long term risk’. I could possibly buy that argument.

[jhu72]

... so much rationalization for being stupid.

[jhu72]

The Trump administration made the liability go away. This was the case from day 1. It is republican SOP. This is not something new.

[Peter Brown]

The Trump administration made the liability go away. This was the case from day 1. It is republican SOP. This is not something new.

Literally no one is arguing that the liability issue is a Democrat or Republican thing.

We all understand now the original reason do the liability shield: it was necessary to get the ball rolling. But at some stage, you’d hope the companies would voluntarily relinquish that shield in order to generate broader confidence in the vaccine. When I learned about it, it certainly made me question the entire process.

I understand from a monetary standpoint why no company voluntarily surrenders such a sweetheart financial deal; on the other hand, maybe stop bashing the unvaccinated folks who are justifiably scared to take your extremely profitable drug that you won’t stand behind? Just a thought.

[jhu72]

[a fan]

no. 5 to 11 year olds have been 24% fully (2 doses) vaccinated for covid. 32% have gotten one shot, and it's not climbing fast.

we're at about 30 something boosted.

the polls told you we weren't getting fully vaxxed before we even knew what end was up. if we don't get a more deadly variant, it's not changing much.

edit: 91 million boosted as of feb 4.
that's 43% of the fully vaxxed pop.
that's 27.5% of the u.s. population.
that's 32% of 12 or over eligible quite some time ago.

Why do you think we're 90%+ vaxxed for MMR etc, and nowhere near that for three different vaccines?

You don't think it's the media (which includes the internet)?

Remember, we can't leave out the context that if an American asks their doctors, 100% of them will tell their charges to take the vaccine if they don't have some condition to preclude it.

So America's personal doctors are 100% behind full vaccination. So what's keeping that from happening, if it's not media-internet disinformation?

so you've named now 2 declarative statements that i have absolutely no idea how you know these for a fact.

sticking with just one of them... what is your explanation for us being at 24% for kids 5-11 vs. 75%? adults? who exactly are these people listening to? that it's right for them, but not their kids?

Some parents may be looking at the hospitalization/deaths for 5-11 year olds and making the determination that the covid risk for that age group is low compared to their own risk profile.

You guys are just making my point for me: how are these parents "looking at hospitalization/deaths for 5-11 year olds"?

They're not getting this data from their pediatrician.

And while they're looking at "looking at hospitalization/deaths for 5-11 year olds"....how much disinformation do you think they're seeing? And how many other parents with zero medical training are they discussing this vaccine with...?

Where is the bulk of this "dialog" and information retrieval happening, fellas?