Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

117,472 Views | 2424 Replies | Last: 13 hrs ago by Unit2Sucks
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

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"
It would suck if any of my family or friends die. I have a friend who died from Covid who moved to Texas from Cal. But one can control the risk one wants to take. I don't want to impact people's livelihoods, mental being or ability to get life saving surgeries. There are costs to closing everything down including those that arise from unintended consequences. Sixhundredthousand people die from cancer. That also sucks. In the end the scientific prediction and government management of the pandemic were woefully inadequate. This inadequacy has been in the making for decades. I hope the science at least will be better going forward but I doubt it. The government will be behind the curve as it always is...
dimitrig
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.

What do you base this statement on?


"Which produces a stronger immune response: a natural infection or a vaccine?
The short answer: We don't know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said.

Vaccines for some pathogens, like pneumococcal bacteria, induce better immunity than the natural infection does. Early evidence suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines may fall into this category. Volunteers who received the Moderna shot had more antibodies - one marker of immune response - in their blood than did people who had been sick with Covid-19.

In other cases, however, a natural infection is more powerful than a vaccine. For example, having mumps which can, in rare cases, cause fertility problems in men generates lifelong immunity, but some people who have received one or two doses of the vaccine still get the disease."

(Source: 'Natural Immunity' From Covid Is Not Safer Than a Vaccine)

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

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
It's more than just picking nits, but trying to add some reality to sitch. Normal FDA review takes 8-10 months. I have no doubt that the feds will expedite, but IMO is is extremely unlikely that full approval arrives before August move-ins (for semester colleges). Yes, the UC/CSU policy is a good signal to incent the college-aged to go get a free vaccine now, but UC/CSU policy does not take effect until regular approval is obtained. Interestingly, other public systems -- Rutgers and UMaryland come to mind -- are not waiting for regular approval but mandating the EUA vax now for fall enrollment. (nothing like UC/CSU leading from behind.)
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

sluggo said:

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
It's more than just picking nits, but trying to add some reality to sitch. Normal FDA review takes 8-10 months. I have no doubt that the feds will expedite, but IMO is is extremely unlikely that full approval arrives before August move-ins (for semester colleges). Yes, the UC/CSU policy is a good signal to incent the college-aged to go get a free vaccine now, but UC/CSU policy does not take effect until regular approval is obtained. Interestingly, other public systems -- Rutgers and UMaryland come to mind -- are not waiting for regular approval but mandating the EUA vax now for fall enrollment. (nothing like UC/CSU leading from behind.)
I did not say you were picking nits. It was fair to call me out. Months ago Pfizer said they were looking for full approval around May. But not sure if that meant submission or approval. The situation with the pandemic is unprecedented, so any prediction on review timing is difficult as well. I assumed review timing would be very fast because of the need. Also, if the emergency is declared over, they need regular approval, which could speed the process.

I have read UC can't legally force vaccination without regular approval but that privates like Stanford can. It true, Rutgers/Maryland may pull back but are bluffing for now to get uptake. Won't pretend to know what is going on.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.


Very sorry for your loss. I have similar experiences with my friends and family. But these are acceptable losses to the Freedumb crowd.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.


Very sorry for your loss. I have similar experiences with my friends and family. But these are acceptable losses to the Freedumb crowd.

If the vaccine had been available there is a 95% chance that my cousin, nephew and niece would be alive and well today.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.


I am sorry for your losses and have experienced such as well. The existing vaccines are definitely better than no vaccine. The more serious the problem, the more serious the steps we will take to fix it. Full licensure should be reserved for safer vaccines that will still save lives. Safe vaccines are especially important because these vaccines will have to be boosted, likely annually. Having a 16 year old take a full spike protein lnp mrna vax every year is crazy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827936/
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.


I am sorry for your losses and have experienced such as well. The existing vaccines are definitely better than no vaccine. The more serious the problem, the more serious the steps we will take to fix it. Full licensure should be reserved for safer vaccines that will still save lives. Safe vaccines are especially important because these vaccines will have to be boosted, likely annually. Having a 16 year old take a full spike protein lnp mrna vax every year is crazy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827936/
Not a doctor or scientist, but are you talking about the risk to the less than 1% of the population who have pulmonary hypertension? Those people are at greater risk from COVID as well, aren't they? Are you "just asking questions" here?

I've enjoyed reading a number of your vaccine related posts over the past few months (particularly this one from November) and would appreciate more on your background if you would care to provide and an update on the field generally. Merck was at the top of your list back then but obviously that vaccine didn't pencil out. Do you still feel good about Sanofi's protein based candidate?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

It might be hard to get full approval with the incidences of pericarditis, myocarditis, TTP, etc... The rush to vaccinate the less vulnerable might be a protective measure to prevent more dangerous mutation.

I wonder how many cases of heart and lung problems are experienced among the non-vacinated who caught COVID and did not die.
I have one cousin who caught COVID in December and died. And one younger nephew and one niece who caught COVID did not die but have been experiencing heart and lung problems for months and maybe longer. Both have not been able to return to work for over six months so far.


I am sorry for your losses and have experienced such as well. The existing vaccines are definitely better than no vaccine. The more serious the problem, the more serious the steps we will take to fix it. Full licensure should be reserved for safer vaccines that will still save lives. Safe vaccines are especially important because these vaccines will have to be boosted, likely annually. Having a 16 year old take a full spike protein lnp mrna vax every year is crazy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827936/
Not a doctor or scientist, but are you talking about the risk to the less than 1% of the population who have pulmonary hypertension? Those people are at greater risk from COVID as well, aren't they? Are you "just asking questions" here?

I've enjoyed reading a number of your vaccine related posts over the past few months (particularly this one from November) and would appreciate more on your background if you would care to provide and an update on the field generally. Merck was at the top of your list back then but obviously that vaccine didn't pencil out. Do you still feel good about Sanofi's protein based candidate?


Merck is out. Sanofi may come back in. I am not sure which vaccine makers will have the best second generation vaccines. At this point, it is hard to tell. I underestimated the amount of resources and advantages that moderna, pfizer, astra zeneca, and jnj would be given by being first.

My argument is strictly against full licensure. I am not an expert in the field. Many of my friends and family are doctors and pharmacists and a few have been in trials. Also, I am fully vaccinated with Moderna because that is what my provider had available. I am weary of giving it to my young kids.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.
It is not true. There is strong six month data. The vaccine makers have said there will have to be boosters, but this need is being debated in the scientific community and the leaders of the government scientific agencies have not signed on. But the other points aren't true either, so what do you expect?

One possible outcome is that boosters will be helpful, in the way the flu shots every year are helpful. For healthy, not old people the flu shot is optional. It is good to get a flu shot to help protect more vulnerable people and to minimize the impact if one contracts the flu, but it is not life or death to such individuals. The analogy is because many experts, like Monica Gandhi at UCSF, think that the T cell response from the vaccines will be durable for years and prevent severe illness. The consensus is that protection from the vaccines will decline over time and make one more susceptible to reinfection, but there is debate as to how serious that reinfection will be and how likely if reinfected one is to spread the virus. So the need for future vaccination is not clear.

All this is not my area, but what has been written is clear.


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

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.
It is not true. There is strong six month data. The vaccine makers have said there will have to be boosters, but this need is being debated in the scientific community and the leaders of the government scientific agencies have not signed on. But the other points aren't true either, so what do you expect?

One possible outcome is that boosters will be helpful, in the way the flu shots every year are helpful. For healthy, not old people the flu shot is optional. It is good to get a flu shot to help protect more vulnerable people and to minimize the impact if one contracts the flu, but it is not life or death to such individuals. The analogy is because many experts, like Monica Gandhi at UCSF, think that the T cell response from the vaccines will be durable for years and prevent severe illness. The consensus is that protection from the vaccines will decline over time and make one more susceptible to reinfection, but there is debate as to how serious that reinfection will be and how likely if reinfected one is to spread the virus. So the need for future vaccination is not clear.

All this is not my area, but what has been written is clear.




Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied mRNA vaccines like Pfizer's and Moderna's, thinks the protection will likely last several years. "These mRNA vaccines it really seems the level of antibodies they elicit are so high, they are persistent," he told CNN. "And the combination of having very high levels of antibodies and persistent levels of protection are the recipe for a very long level of protection against these variants. I would not be surprised if this is a vaccine that we only get once."

(Source: https://www.biospace.com/article/how-long-will-covid-19-vaccines-be-effective-six-months-and-counting)


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).


Several months ago I heard Dr. Fauci on a TV interview (MSNBC?) report that it was uncertain how long the vaccines would prevent the patient from contracting COVID. He speculated that maybe like the Flu vaccine we might have to have a n annual COVID shot to support the past shots or to deal with variants.

He was very open about this possibility and admitted that only time would tell about the long term effective ness. But he pointed out that people did not have a problem with annual Flu shots so an annual COVID shot should not prove much of a problem.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?

As sluggo stated, I had heard that there would be some longer-lasting t cell immunity. Frankly though, I don't know and was asking if you could explain YOUR assertion that it has "so far been proven correct" that "mrna protection would not last longer than a year". Would it be that the protection fades, or that the virus mutates?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?

As sluggo stated, I had heard that there would be some longer-lasting t cell immunity. Frankly though, I don't know and was asking if you could explain YOUR assertion that it has "so far been proven correct" that "mrna protection would not last longer than a year". Would it be that the protection fades, or that the virus mutates?


I am not sure what you heard as Fauci flip flops quite a bit. Moderna elicits very few T Cells and Pfizer is only a little better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/pfizer-vaccine-booster.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/14/covid-vaccine-moderna-hopes-to-have-booster-shot-ready-by-the-fall-says-ceo.html
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?

As sluggo stated, I had heard that there would be some longer-lasting t cell immunity. Frankly though, I don't know and was asking if you could explain YOUR assertion that it has "so far been proven correct" that "mrna protection would not last longer than a year". Would it be that the protection fades, or that the virus mutates?


I am not sure what you heard as Fauci flip flops quite a bit. Moderna elicits very few T Cells and Pfizer is only a little better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/pfizer-vaccine-booster.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/14/covid-vaccine-moderna-hopes-to-have-booster-shot-ready-by-the-fall-says-ceo.html
Quoting the self-interested CEOs of the vaccine companies is not evidence. Monica Gandhi says at least 10 years of T cell protection. She also says she doe not think we will need annual vaccinations. Present evidence from a relevant scientist. https://leadingage.org/regulation/coronavirus-insights-interview-dr-monica-gandhi-%E2%80%93-february-24-2021
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?

As sluggo stated, I had heard that there would be some longer-lasting t cell immunity. Frankly though, I don't know and was asking if you could explain YOUR assertion that it has "so far been proven correct" that "mrna protection would not last longer than a year". Would it be that the protection fades, or that the virus mutates?


I am not sure what you heard as Fauci flip flops quite a bit. Moderna elicits very few T Cells and Pfizer is only a little better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/pfizer-vaccine-booster.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/14/covid-vaccine-moderna-hopes-to-have-booster-shot-ready-by-the-fall-says-ceo.html
Quoting the self-interested CEOs of the vaccine companies is not evidence. Monica Gandhi says at least 10 years of T cell protection. She also says she doe not think we will need annual vaccinations. Present evidence from a relevant scientist. https://leadingage.org/regulation/coronavirus-insights-interview-dr-monica-gandhi-%E2%80%93-february-24-2021


I sure hope she is right. . this supports her (pfizer trial scientist)

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/pfizer-biontechs-covid-19-vaccine-not-expected-to-require-a-booster-in-6-12-months-variant-of-concern-specific-shot-preferred/

This does not.

https://www.biospace.com/article/australian-researchers-say-best-covid-19-vaccines-58-percent-effective-at-250-days/
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

Big C said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

oski003 said:

sluggo said:

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.



I know we want to believe that nothing was skipped, but here is one example of something that has been.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-won-t-require-site-inspections-for-covid-vaccine-emergency-authorizations-bloomberg

Consider the case with JnJ Astra and Emergent Bio. That is reckless.
Nothing in terms of standard clinical trials. The case you bring up was identified before anyone was given the vaccine. Now I remember you are the guy who prefers vaccines who have failed in clinical trials to those that have succeeded, and you bring up side effects in your previous post that have not been connected to the vaccines.


1) My predictions on which company would produce the best covid vaccine mostly did not come true. Merck pulled out. Sanofi failed. When mRNA 'worked,' others were slowed.

2) The side effects are caused by the vaccines.

3) Because covid is dangerous and everyone is anxious to try to get back to normal (and fearful of something like India), governmental agencies and the media will say and do anything to get needles in arms.

4) Inspecting commercial manufacturing is one of the traditional key elements to go from phase 2 to phase 3 in drug trials. Keep in mind that global pressure is what has been halting jnj. Also, keep in mind that JnJ was halted recently for the same event that it was secretly halted during its phase 3. Emergent Bio may have never been inspected if not for the halts on Astra Zeneca and JnJ.

5) I predicted that mrna vaccine protection would not last longer than I year. This has so far been proven correct. At that time, nobody was admitting that to be the case (although Fauci, Borla, and Bancel knew this).

I'd be curious to hear how it's been so far proven correct that mrna protection does not last longer than one year.


What makes you think people will not need an annual booster?

As sluggo stated, I had heard that there would be some longer-lasting t cell immunity. Frankly though, I don't know and was asking if you could explain YOUR assertion that it has "so far been proven correct" that "mrna protection would not last longer than a year". Would it be that the protection fades, or that the virus mutates?


I am not sure what you heard as Fauci flip flops quite a bit. Moderna elicits very few T Cells and Pfizer is only a little better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/world/pfizer-vaccine-booster.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/14/covid-vaccine-moderna-hopes-to-have-booster-shot-ready-by-the-fall-says-ceo.html
Quoting the self-interested CEOs of the vaccine companies is not evidence. Monica Gandhi says at least 10 years of T cell protection. She also says she doe not think we will need annual vaccinations. Present evidence from a relevant scientist. https://leadingage.org/regulation/coronavirus-insights-interview-dr-monica-gandhi-%E2%80%93-february-24-2021


I sure hope she is right. . this supports her

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/pfizer-biontechs-covid-19-vaccine-not-expected-to-require-a-booster-in-6-12-months-variant-of-concern-specific-shot-preferred/

I am not a doctor but I am staying at a Hampton Inn. It looks like Dr Fauci's report (I mentioned in my prior post) was generally accurate
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

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"
That kind of cost-benefit analysis is done all the time. There has been a total of 303 child deaths reported related to COVID in the US, which means they are 10 x more likely to die in a car accident.

Should children not be allowed in cars?

COVID and Age

Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

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"
That kind of cost-benefit analysis is done all the time. There has been a total of 303 child deaths reported related to COVID in the US, which means they are 10 x more likely to die in a car accident.

Should children not be allowed in cars?

COVID and Age

Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents

That's a facile argument.
The main reason that kids were kept from school was not that they were susceptible to dying from COVID but because it was believed that they would bring it home and infect their family and the families of their friends and the family and friends of their teachers. In short it was believed that opening up the schools could become super spreader events, like many church gatherings became.
That was a rational conclusion at the time. After all it was proven that people who were infected and were asymptomatic could still infect other people.

As for your argument about prohibiting kids from riding in cars- that currently is done. Kids are prohibited from riding in cars unless certain precautions are taken like special protective seats and seatbelts.

I certainly hope that doesn't become politicized and seatbelts become a Red vs Blue issue.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Civil Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

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"
That kind of cost-benefit analysis is done all the time. There has been a total of 303 child deaths reported related to COVID in the US, which means they are 10 x more likely to die in a car accident.

Should children not be allowed in cars?

COVID and Age

Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents

That's a facile argument.
The main reason that kids were kept from school was not that they were susceptible to dying from COVID but because it was believed that they would bring it home and infect their family and the families of their friends and the family and friends of their teachers. In short it was believed that opening up the schools could become super spreader events, like many church gatherings became.
That was a rational conclusion at the time. After all it was proven that people who were infected and were asymptomatic could still infect other people.

As for your argument about prohibiting kids from riding in cars- that currently is done. Kids are prohibited from riding in cars unless certain precautions are taken like special protective seats and seatbelts.

I certainly hope that doesn't become politicized and seatbelts become a Red vs Blue issue.


My facile argument was based on your response to zipergate's comments and the overall theme about requiring kids to get vaccinated NOW. If your response to zipergate was more nuanced then it was not clear to me.

As to your reply to the kids riding in cars argument, the 10 x data I provided is with those certain precautions like special protective seats and seatbelts. And yet we still permit them to do it.

It's a shame some people have to see everything in terms of red vs blue, but that seems to be the norm for those that follow cable news in an unhealthy way.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

Civil Bear said:

GivemTheAxe said:

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"
That kind of cost-benefit analysis is done all the time. There has been a total of 303 child deaths reported related to COVID in the US, which means they are 10 x more likely to die in a car accident.

Should children not be allowed in cars?

COVID and Age

Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents

That's a facile argument.
The main reason that kids were kept from school was not that they were susceptible to dying from COVID but because it was believed that they would bring it home and infect their family and the families of their friends and the family and friends of their teachers. In short it was believed that opening up the schools could become super spreader events, like many church gatherings became.
That was a rational conclusion at the time. After all it was proven that people who were infected and were asymptomatic could still infect other people.

As for your argument about prohibiting kids from riding in cars- that currently is done. Kids are prohibited from riding in cars unless certain precautions are taken like special protective seats and seatbelts.

I certainly hope that doesn't become politicized and seatbelts become a Red vs Blue issue.


My facile argument was based on your response to zipergate's comments and the overall theme about requiring kids to get vaccinated NOW. If your response to zipergate was more nuanced then it was not clear to me.

As to your reply to the kids riding in cars argument, the 10 x data I provided is with those certain precautions like special protective seats and seatbelts. And yet we still permit them to do it.

It's a shame some people have to see everything in terms of red vs blue, but that seems to be the norm for those that follow cable news in an unhealthy way.

Maybe we were talking at cross purposes. A common problem when communicating on the internet. I certainly agree with your final sentence.

I have been a lawyer for 45+ years and have worked both as a litigator and as a transactional lawyer. I have learned that it is very easy to focus on and exploit the differences between your client and the counter-party(ies) if that is your purpose. It is much harder to get your client and the counter- party(ies) to overcome their differences to get to "yes".
But it can be done if you focus on their similarities.
Unfortunately to achieve that goal you must have experienced counsel on the other side who is like-minded.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess I don't understand the car accident analogy. When a child dies in a car accident how many of his or her family and community members subsequently die of a car accident that they contracted from interacting with this child?

I think GTA was pretty clear that infectious disease is different from an accident.

Unfortunately despite all of the experience we have over the last 15 months, because we don't do sentinel testing we really don't have a solid idea as to whether young kids are getting and spreading COVID to their family members or not. At this point we are continuing to see improvements in case numbers as more and more adults are vaccinated and they've only just begun testing the vaccine on children. Hopefully case counts continue to recede over the summer to a point where there are no concerns with opening schools up in the fall with little to no safety precautions and we are more or less back to normal as a society. Given how effective the vaccines have proven, that's a distinct possibility in the absence of the development of vaccine resistant variants in which case we will really be in the you know what again.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

I guess I don't understand the car accident analogy. When a child dies in a car accident how many of his or her family and community members subsequently die of a car accident that they contracted from interacting with this child?

I think GTA was pretty clear that infectious disease is different from an accident.

Unfortunately despite all of the experience we have over the last 15 months, because we don't do sentinel testing we really don't have a solid idea as to whether young kids are getting and spreading COVID to their family members or not. At this point we are continuing to see improvements in case numbers as more and more adults are vaccinated and they've only just begun testing the vaccine on children. Hopefully case counts continue to recede over the summer to a point where there are no concerns with opening schools up in the fall with little to no safety precautions and we are more or less back to normal as a society. Given how effective the vaccines have proven, that's a distinct possibility in the absence of the development of vaccine resistant variants in which case we will really be in the you know what again.
That is because the topic of kids possibly spreading COVID was never part of the discussion. The question was if it makes sense to require kids to get vaccinated unnecessarily. With the rest of the population already having the opportunity, the spreading question is a non sequitur.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I guess I don't understand the car accident analogy. When a child dies in a car accident how many of his or her family and community members subsequently die of a car accident that they contracted from interacting with this child?

I think GTA was pretty clear that infectious disease is different from an accident.

Unfortunately despite all of the experience we have over the last 15 months, because we don't do sentinel testing we really don't have a solid idea as to whether young kids are getting and spreading COVID to their family members or not. At this point we are continuing to see improvements in case numbers as more and more adults are vaccinated and they've only just begun testing the vaccine on children. Hopefully case counts continue to recede over the summer to a point where there are no concerns with opening schools up in the fall with little to no safety precautions and we are more or less back to normal as a society. Given how effective the vaccines have proven, that's a distinct possibility in the absence of the development of vaccine resistant variants in which case we will really be in the you know what again.
That is because the topic of kids possibly spreading COVID was never part of the discussion. The question was if it makes sense to require kids to get vaccinated unnecessarily. With the rest of the population already having the opportunity, the spreading question is a non sequitur.


Sure but you are baking in false equivalences. First by ignoring some of the benefits to society of vaccination. Second, by ignoring all negative consequences to kids from COVID other than death. There are kids suffering from long COVID and even for those who quickly get over it, we don't know what the long term consequences are.

We are choosing between two sets of unknown long term consequences and I would defer to public health experts and not uninformed speculation that chooses to ignore inconvenient possibilities.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

sluggo said:

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
It's more than just picking nits, but trying to add some reality to sitch. Normal FDA review takes 8-10 months. I have no doubt that the feds will expedite, but IMO is is extremely unlikely that full approval arrives before August move-ins (for semester colleges). Yes, the UC/CSU policy is a good signal to incent the college-aged to go get a free vaccine now, but UC/CSU policy does not take effect until regular approval is obtained. Interestingly, other public systems -- Rutgers and UMaryland come to mind -- are not waiting for regular approval but mandating the EUA vax now for fall enrollment. (nothing like UC/CSU leading from behind.)
Just following up on this. Pfizer has now applied for full approval although they say they still need to provide more data. I am going to make the wild guess that approval will come in July/August. There will be pressure to go fast to help promote a more normal fall. With UC's early starting time and the three weeks between shots it will be difficult to make mandatory for fall. Maybe they will require one shot. They could force that as a condition for entering the dorms, and then they could follow up with those people to make sure they were fully vaccinated. But I would be surprised if the campus was that organized.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Read in Dutch paper that people with fillers can be affected with swelling when getting Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Sounds too overbearing what say you Sluggo?
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goobear said:

Read in Dutch paper that people with fillers can be affected with swelling when getting Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Sounds too overbearing what say you Sluggo?
No particular insight. As millions get vaccinated rare side effects will be seen. Fortunately this one appears to be not serious and treatable.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goobear said:

Read in Dutch paper that people with fillers can be affected with swelling when getting Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Sounds too overbearing what say you Sluggo?

Fillers?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.