Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

37,801 Views | 1320 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by bearister
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!



If the UC's and the CSU's are going to require vaccinations for students to return to in-person classes, it is very possible that proof of vaccination would be required for in-person access to the games on university property (that is, CMS and Haas Pavilion)

By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)

So vax-up and bring you vaccination record along with your regular game-day gear.
Small price to pay to see the game in person (since the vaccination is free).
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

KoreAmBear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!



If the UC's and the CSU's are going to require vaccinations for students to return to in-person classes, it is very possible that proof of vaccination would be required for in-person access to the games on university property (that is, CMS and Haas Pavilion)

By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)

So vax-up and bring you vaccination record along with your regular game-day gear.
Small price to pay to see the game in person (since the vaccination is free).
Is it too much to ask for a nice bowl game location to travel to?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

KoreAmBear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!



If the UC's and the CSU's are going to require vaccinations for students to return to in-person classes, it is very possible that proof of vaccination would be required for in-person access to the games on university property (that is, CMS and Haas Pavilion)

By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)

So vax-up and bring you vaccination record along with your regular game-day gear.
Small price to pay to see the game in person (since the vaccination is free).
At the very least, they should copy the SF Giants and create a vaccination-only section where non-vaccinated people would not be permitted.

Of course, I am a proponent of creating a vaccination passport that would allow vaccinated people to travel internationally without any restrictions....
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

After everything that people have had to go through the past year+, i think anybody who chooses to NOT get a vaccine (rare health exemptions aside), should be completely marginalized. Here we're lucky to have a way out of this mess and some people can't even hold out their arm for a free solution.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
Not sure if your source gave teh full story, but UC/CSU said that they will require vax once the CDC gives regular approval for the vax. Right now, all 3 are approved under an Emergency order. None of the three approved vax manufacturers have yet submitted data/application for full/regular approval. They originally had planned to submit by late April.

Typical approval takes 8-10 months. Likely CDC will fast track, but you can assume that no way no how the feds approve by early August in time to get (hundreds of thousands of) students vaccinated, submit and check records, and approve before move-in late August.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CDC does not approve vaccines. The FDA does.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
Not sure if your source gave teh full story, but UC/CSU said that they will require vax once the CDC gives regular approval for the vax. Right now, all 3 are approved under an Emergency order. None of the three approved vax manufacturers have yet submitted data/application for full/regular approval. They originally had planned to submit by late April.

Typical approval takes 8-10 months. Likely CDC will fast track, but you can assume that no way no how the feds approve by early August in time to get (hundreds of thousands of) students vaccinated, submit and check records, and approve before move-in late August.


On reading the official report it is a little confusing. You are correct that the REQUIREMENT goes into effect
as soon as the FDA gives its regular approval to one vaccine. But the UC's and CSU's are putting out the word now so that the students could be vaccinated NOW (with a vaccine that was approved under the emergency approval protocols). Apparently the students-staff-faculty don't have to be vaccinated with the particular vaccine that receives that first
approval.
It is strange that the requirement would even mention the "formal approval" requirement unless it is intended to appease the "reluctant- vaxers"
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fire Fauci.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Big Dog said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
Not sure if your source gave teh full story, but UC/CSU said that they will require vax once the CDC gives regular approval for the vax. Right now, all 3 are approved under an Emergency order. None of the three approved vax manufacturers have yet submitted data/application for full/regular approval. They originally had planned to submit by late April.

Typical approval takes 8-10 months. Likely CDC will fast track, but you can assume that no way no how the feds approve by early August in time to get (hundreds of thousands of) students vaccinated, submit and check records, and approve before move-in late August.


On reading the official report it is a little confusing. You are correct that the REQUIREMENT goes into effect
as soon as the FDA gives its regular approval to one vaccine. But the UC's and CSU's are putting out the word now so that the students could be vaccinated NOW (with a vaccine that was approved under the emergency approval protocols). Apparently the students-staff-faculty don't have to be vaccinated with the particular vaccine that receives that first
approval.
It is strange that the requirement would even mention the "formal approval" requirement unless it is intended to appease the "reluctant- vaxers"


MYSTERY SOLVED. I may have just discovered why the UC's and the CSU's new regulations go into effect AFTER formal approval of the vaccine.

It appears that there is a crazy rumor going round that persons vaccinated with the emergency-approved vaccine are likely to have certain health problems and that those health problems can be passed on to non-vaccinated persons. (HuffPost reports of a Miami private school that is not allowing persons vaccinated with emergency-approved vaccines to teach in their elementary school where kids are not vaccinated.)

This presents a logical conundrum. The people placing their kids in this type of school are often anti-vaxers who either believe they are some how magically protected from catching COVID which has killed over 550,000 Americans or COVID is a hoax or all the reported testing for the COVID vaccines is wrong.

Yet they believe that a. they are NOT also magically protected from these imaginary health problems; b. These new rumored health problems are real even though there are no official reported cases of the problems.

They are incredibly gullible and incredibly skeptical at the same time.

Oh well I guess P.T Barnum was right. If he were alive today he would have been a billionaire or elected president. (Hey wait a minute...)
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

GivemTheAxe said:

Big Dog said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
Not sure if your source gave teh full story, but UC/CSU said that they will require vax once the CDC gives regular approval for the vax. Right now, all 3 are approved under an Emergency order. None of the three approved vax manufacturers have yet submitted data/application for full/regular approval. They originally had planned to submit by late April.

Typical approval takes 8-10 months. Likely CDC will fast track, but you can assume that no way no how the feds approve by early August in time to get (hundreds of thousands of) students vaccinated, submit and check records, and approve before move-in late August.


On reading the official report it is a little confusing. You are correct that the REQUIREMENT goes into effect
as soon as the FDA gives its regular approval to one vaccine. But the UC's and CSU's are putting out the word now so that the students could be vaccinated NOW (with a vaccine that was approved under the emergency approval protocols). Apparently the students-staff-faculty don't have to be vaccinated with the particular vaccine that receives that first
approval.
It is strange that the requirement would even mention the "formal approval" requirement unless it is intended to appease the "reluctant- vaxers"


MYSTERY SOLVED. I may have just discovered why the UC's and the CSU's new regulations go into effect AFTER formal approval of the vaccine.

It appears that there is a crazy rumor going round that persons vaccinated with the emergency-approved vaccine are likely to have certain health problems and that those health problems can be passed on to non-vaccinated persons
. (HuffPost reports of a Miami private school that is not allowing persons vaccinated with emergency-approved vaccines to teach in their elementary school where kids are not vaccinated.)

This presents a logical conundrum. The people placing their kids in this type of school are often anti-vaxers who either believe they are some how magically protected from catching COVID which has killed over 550,000 Americans or COVID is a hoax or all the reported testing for the COVID vaccines is wrong.

Yet they believe that a. they are NOT also magically protected from these imaginary health problems; b. These new rumored health problems are real even though there are no official reported cases of the problems.

They are incredibly gullible and incredibly skeptical at the same time.

Oh well I guess P.T Barnum was right. If he were alive today he would have been a billionaire or elected president. (Hey wait a minute...)


Why would a ridiculous hardly-known rumor affect the decision-making of the UCs/CSUs?

The things people come up with... and then actually believe, never fail to amaze me. (not referring to you, GivemTheAxe, but whomever's in on this rumor)
SmellinRoses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I'm no theologian but "exceptions for religious reasons" sounds like a hole you could drive a tank through.
HuaHin (fka Uthai)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


After everything that people have had to go through the past year+, i think anybody who chooses to NOT get a vaccine (rare health exemptions aside), should be completely marginalized. Here we're lucky to have a way out of this mess and some people can't even hold out their arm for a free solution.
The vaccine has been available to the general public for a little over a week. Maybe wait until the people standing in line have their opportunity before bashing people who haven't been vaccinated yet?? Good on you if you got to the front of the line and have your shots. Now show some humility and don't be a jackass.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not many lines these days. Things are in full swing, even in Santa Clara County, where it was very difficult to get appointments just two weeks ago.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/race-for-a-vaccine/multiple-santa-clara-county-vaccination-sites-accepting-drop-ins-this-week/2529332/

And jackasses in glass houses...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmellinRoses said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I'm no theologian but "exceptions for religious reasons" sounds like a hole you could drive a tank through.


Agree that "religious reasons" is very vague and broad. But today's USSC is very much against restrictions on religious liberties; so I don't have a problem with that exception. In any event it would be difficult to enforce the requirement if someone refused to get vaccinated and took the matter up to the USSC.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I want to be at CMS again watching a football game!


Keep in mind, I was informed by my Gold Rep that if social distancing requirements are imposed on games at CMS this Fall, priority access will he given to
season ticket holders.
So 1. Get your shots.
2. Get your season tickets
3. Get your game gear ready.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

SmellinRoses said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I'm no theologian but "exceptions for religious reasons" sounds like a hole you could drive a tank through.


Agree that "religious reasons" is very vague and broad. But today's USSC is very much against restrictions on religious liberties; so I don't have a problem with that exception. In any event it would be difficult to enforce the requirement if someone refused to get vaccinated and took the matter up to the USSC.



Is there a single legitimate organized religion the has a thou shall not be vaccinated commandant? I thought God was silent on this issue.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

GivemTheAxe said:

SmellinRoses said:

GivemTheAxe said:

OK I am back. I tried to stay away but could not keep it up.
Just read on Politico that the UC's and the CSU's are going to require students who want to come back in the Fall to have received COVID vaccines (with limited exceptions for religious reasons).

Luckily there should be plenty of time for all returning students to get those vaccines since the rate of vaccinations has been dropping in part due to resistance from anti-vaxers.

Go Bears!
But first get your shots.

If every fan has there shots by the beginning of football season, it becomes a lot less risky for the fans who attend.
I'm no theologian but "exceptions for religious reasons" sounds like a hole you could drive a tank through.


Agree that "religious reasons" is very vague and broad. But today's USSC is very much against restrictions on religious liberties; so I don't have a problem with that exception. In any event it would be difficult to enforce the requirement if someone refused to get vaccinated and took the matter up to the USSC.



Is there a single legitimate organized religion the has a thou shall not be vaccinated commandant? I thought God was silent on this issue.


I don't know of any that espouse such a commandment. But there are plenty of flim-flam artists out there that twist the basic principles of religions to accomplish their own political, social or economic objectives.
That is how the principle of "love one another" and "do no harm to one another" can be twisted into: "but it's OK to cheat people out of their possessions, OK to make them slaves, OK to kill them.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any word if they would require proof of vaccination of children? Two of our season tickets are for elementary-aged ones...

As I understand vaccine evaluation was not performed and/or completed on youth, and if so, such a requirement would seemingly not make sense. Classroom instruction has resumed here in Santa Clara County with children not being required to vaccinate, so I imagine for an outdoor event (CMS), there won't be such a requirement.

Thanks.
Sig test...
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually, it is being tested...right now on young people. (Ok, this guy isn't college-age but he is pretty young)




This is just one of many immediate side effects. We won't know what all the long-term impacts might be for years, the normal testing period for every previous vaccine. By then, we'll have lots of data from hundreds of millions of human guinea pigs.

I'm not against mRNA gene therapies per se--I recommended by 82 year-old mother get it. But for college-aged people where the risk of covid is negligible, this "vaccine" requirement is insane. DO NO HARM.

Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:





By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)


Pretty sure it's kids under 16.
That's the issue I have with the opening of Berkeley High School....which after Day 1 of opening there were COVID positive students. One should not open a high school to all students if only half the students are eligible for the vaccine. That's just plain stupid.

Cheers!
Go Bears!!
BGolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3 people get together.
One has had the virus and recovered.
One has had the vaccine.
One has had neither.

Which one of them is at risk from the others?
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc said:

GivemTheAxe said:





By September, everyone who wants the vaccine should have had an opportunity to be fully vaccinated (except maybe kids 10 and under)


Pretty sure it's kids under 16.
That's the issue I have with the opening of Berkeley High School....which after Day 1 of opening there were COVID positive students. One should not open a high school to all students if only half the students are eligible for the vaccine. That's just plain stupid.

Cheers!
Go Bears!!

Currently Pfizer is 16-and-over.

However, they reported results from Phase 3 trials on kids ages 12-15, reported no safety concerns and 100% effectiveness (Yes, 100%. Limited sample size, but still.) They have applied for Emergency Use Authorization for that age group and are expected to receive it maybe as soon as next month.

Potentially great news for the full-time return of Middle schools and high schools in the fall!

Pfizer and maybe others have begun Phase 3 trials on kids younger than 12. That's going to take a while. Maybe by winter?
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. These experimental mRNA vaccines are not FDA-approved having mostly bypassed the safety testing vaccines typically undergo. There is no long-term data on these vaccines.
2. It is unclear whether the mRNA vaccines reduce transmission. IIRC, the endpoint for the clinical trials was reduction of severe disease; that's not the same as reduction in infection and transmission though that is likely true.
3. People at high-risk of Covid can receive the vaccine to reduce their risk. The vaccine works, no? If they still feel unsafe, they can adjust their behavior.
4. ADE. Some scientists say vaccines should not be used universally in the middle of a pandemic.
5. My body, my choice. Bill Gates, the world's leading and most powerful advocate for mass vaccinations, a person certainly in strong position to evaluate the risk-reward on these vaccines and a person who, at age 65 has an elevated risk for Covid, has decided not to be vaccinated. What does that tell you? (As an aside, there have been stories that his children have not received any vaccinations at all.)

I'm not against vaccinations, but I'm not convinced that these particular vaccines are right for everyone right now, especially my two teenage boys.

sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

1. These experimental mRNA vaccines are not FDA-approved having mostly bypassed the safety testing vaccines typically undergo. There is no long-term data on these vaccines.
2. It is unclear whether the mRNA vaccines reduce transmission. IIRC, the endpoint for the clinical trials was reduction of severe disease; that's not the same as reduction in infection and transmission though that is likely true.
3. People at high-risk of Covid can receive the vaccine to reduce their risk. The vaccine works, no? If they still feel unsafe, they can adjust their behavior.
4. ADE. Some scientists say vaccines should not be used universally in the middle of a pandemic.
5. My body, my choice. Bill Gates, the world's leading and most powerful advocate for mass vaccinations, a person certainly in strong position to evaluate the risk-reward on these vaccines and a person who, at age 65 has an elevated risk for Covid, has decided not to be vaccinated. What does that tell you? (As an aside, there have been stories that his children have not received any vaccinations at all.)

I'm not against vaccinations, but I'm not convinced that these particular vaccines are right for everyone right now, especially my two teenage boys.


You should do your own research and do what you want. But you also should not share information that is not true.

1. No safety testing was skipped. Most safety issues with vaccines are short term. True that long term data is not available because you would need a time machine. But the mRNA vaccines will be FDA approved any day now.
2. Even if they did not reduce transmission of those infected, by stopping spread by 90-95% the mRNA vaccines would reduce transmission substantially. But they also appear to reduce transmission in breakthrough cases. Data is coming out of nursing homes. The endpoint for the mRNA trials was minor to moderate disease, which is a fine endpoint. Severe disease is more important but the trials would have had to run much longer with that endpoint and we are in a pandemic.
3. I agree. Vaccinated people should worry less.
4. Some scientists, actually many scientists, are idiots. I know, I am a scientist. We should vaccinate to stop the pandemic. As we did.
5. Bill Gates tweeted that he got vaccinated as soon as he could and shared a photo. There are internet weirdos who say an actor took his place.

The lack of long term follow up data is really the only argument against. There is a calculation to be made for teenagers who are unlikely to be harmed by the virus (ignoring the benefit to society if we all get vaccinated). My older teen has been vaccinated and my younger one will be as soon as the age drops for the vaccine.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BGolden said:

3 people get together.
One has had the virus and recovered.
One has had the vaccine.
One has had neither.

Which one of them is at risk from the
others?

Trick question unless all three are on the same deserted island

A is at risk from C if C catches COVID from a fourth person.
C is at risk from A if A gets reinfected from a fourth person with COVID. (Recovering from COVID is no sure protection against reinfection. )

The only safe person is B who received the vaccine.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

1. These experimental mRNA vaccines are not FDA-approved having mostly bypassed the safety testing vaccines typically undergo. There is no long-term data on these vaccines.
2. It is unclear whether the mRNA vaccines reduce transmission. IIRC, the endpoint for the clinical trials was reduction of severe disease; that's not the same as reduction in infection and transmission though that is likely true.
3. People at high-risk of Covid can receive the vaccine to reduce their risk. The vaccine works, no? If they still feel unsafe, they can adjust their behavior.
4. ADE. Some scientists say vaccines should not be used universally in the middle of a pandemic.
5. My body, my choice. Bill Gates, the world's leading and most powerful advocate for mass vaccinations, a person certainly in strong position to evaluate the risk-reward on these vaccines and a person who, at age 65 has an elevated risk for Covid, has decided not to be vaccinated. What does that tell you? (As an aside, there have been stories that his children have not received any vaccinations at all.)

I'm not against vaccinations, but I'm not convinced that these particular vaccines are right for everyone right now, especially my two teenage boys.



The argument against reminds me of an old analogy

If you know here is a lion downstairs in your house. Worry about that one. Don't worry about the lion that might be in the house across the street.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

BGolden said:

3 people get together.
One has had the virus and recovered.
One has had the vaccine.
One has had neither.

Which one of them is at risk from the
others?

Trick question unless all three are on the same deserted island

A is at risk from C if C catches COVID from a fourth person.
C is at risk from A if A gets reinfected from a fourth person with COVID. (Recovering from COVID is no sure protection against reinfection. )

The only safe person is B who received the vaccine.


A person who is vaccinated should not have more antibodies than a person who actually had COVID and recovered.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

GivemTheAxe said:

BGolden said:

3 people get together.
One has had the virus and recovered.
One has had the vaccine.
One has had neither.

Which one of them is at risk from the
others?

Trick question unless all three are on the same deserted island

A is at risk from C if C catches COVID from a fourth person.
C is at risk from A if A gets reinfected from a fourth person with COVID. (Recovering from COVID is no sure protection against reinfection. )

The only safe person is B who received the vaccine.


A person who is vaccinated should not have more antibodies than a person who actually had COVID and recovered.

Official reports are to the contrary. (Or at least there is still some serious question whether a person who has recovered from COVID has the same resistance to infection as the person who has received the vaccine.)
I am not a specialist in this field and now that the man with the orange hair no longer has his thumb on the scale, I feel I can trust the official reports.

My answer to the hypothetical question is based upon the current official reports
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?


"1. No safety testing was skipped. Most safety issues with vaccines are short term. True that long term data is not available because you would need a time machine. But the mRNA vaccines will be FDA approved any day now."

Speaking of posting something that is not true. The 3 manufacturers who have a current Emergency Use Authorization have not yet even submitted their application for full approval. Thus it is impossible for the FDA approval to be 'any day now'.

The rest of your post is spot-on.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
let me guess, zippergate was skeptical of any claim of myocarditis for young people as a result of COVID but has no problem believing that the vaccine can cause it.

More than 260k unvaccinated people have died of COVID since we first started administering the Pfizer vaccine. At this point there is no reason to believe that Pfizer, or any other vaccine, is a larger risk for ANY AGE GROUP than COVID is.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:



"1. No safety testing was skipped. Most safety issues with vaccines are short term. True that long term data is not available because you would need a time machine. But the mRNA vaccines will be FDA approved any day now."

Speaking of posting something that is not true. The 3 manufacturers who have a current Emergency Use Authorization have not yet even submitted their application for full approval. Thus it is impossible for the FDA approval to be 'any day now'.

The rest of your post is spot-on.
You caught me. I took liberties. Both said they are seeking approval soon, they have the data in hand, and I consider it a formality. See for instance https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-biontech-eye-official-covid-19-vaccine-nod-as-efficacy-stands-strong-including
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
>The argument against reminds me of an old analogy


If you know here is a lion downstairs in your house. Worry about that one. Don't worry about the lion that might be in the house across the street.<

This is precisely my point because it's not a lion downstairs, not if you're young. Covid is less dangerous than the flu for young people. Much better for them that they are exposed to Covid and have a broad immune response that will provide better protection against variants and similar viruses in the future.

You all may be right and I hope you are. But the precautionary principle would suggest that trading very low known risk for unknown risk is imprudent.

As an aside, when the powers that be give us honest information about the origin of the virus and consider the costs and benefits of dealing with the pandemic (lockdowns, treatments, masks, immune system health, overall health, etc), I'll take them more seriously.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

>The argument against reminds me of an old analogy


If you know here is a lion downstairs in your house. Worry about that one. Don't worry about the lion that might be in the house across the street.<

This is precisely my point because it's not a lion downstairs, not if you're young. Covid is less dangerous than the flu for young people. Much better for them that they are exposed to Covid and have a broad immune response that will provide better protection against variants and similar viruses in the future.

You all may be right and I hope you are. But the precautionary principle would suggest that trading very low known risk for unknown risk is imprudent.

As an aside, when the powers that be give us honest information about the origin of the virus and consider the costs and benefits of dealing with the pandemic (lockdowns, treatments, masks, immune system health, overall health, etc), I'll take them more seriously.


I love it when we are faced with a cost benefit analysis that involves life and death decisions. over 550,000 Americans are dead. And many more are yet to die.

If any of your loved ones or if you yourself were to be counted among the dead. Would that change how you view the cost-benefit analysis.

Or does that decision to be made based upon upon "other people's deaths"
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.