Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

Remember, my response was to the assertion that one ought not perform a cost-benefit analysis unless they have had a loved one pass. My simple (some would say facile) example suggested otherwise. It's fine if you now want to bring up other arguments, but I would prefer you don't accuse me of false equivalences.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

Remember, my response was to the assertion that one ought not perform a cost-benefit analysis unless they have had a loved one pass. My simple (some would say facile) example suggested otherwise. It's fine if you now want to bring up other arguments, but I would prefer you don't accuse me of false equivalences.

---

Sure, fair point if we had left it at your original facile argument which ignored the vast majority of the cost from COVID in the high-level cost benefit discussion. If you were merely intending to make the point that we perform cost benefit analysis all the time, why reference the fact that kids are 10x more likely to die in a car accident? If you are going to hint at a cost benefit analysis with some rough indication of magnitude, don't you think it's fair to at least attempt to take a more comprehensive view? You made an explicit equivalence between the two and ignored everything except the number of deaths. How is that not a false equivalence?

I'm not just picking on you - I see this sort of false equivalence all of the time and it's not a partisan issue as it happens across all categories of participants. The issue of vaccinating children is important to me as I have two young ones and will need to consider my choices at some point assuming they become eligible. Right now they are at school in person and wear masks at just about all times. They don't really seem to mind but I wonder what the mental burden is from having to wear a mask as well as my mental burden in having to remind them. I also have to consider how to balance the potential ramifications of catching COVID against vaccination. I am not only looking at the short term death total because that's not a comprehensive evaluation of the cost of COVID to children. Of course we don't know whether there are longer term costs from the vaccine either but I see a lot of people falsely assuming that because COVID hasn't been proven to kill that many children in the short term, that the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. That sort of false equivalence is dangerous - we are assuming away unknown costs from COVID and baking in unknown costs of the vaccine. That's an incredibly poor way to do a cost benefit analysis and a dangerous way to manage a challenging public health situation.

Also I thought the 10x number you quoted sounded high so I did some checking. The NHTSA says only 1k children (14 and under) died in 2019 so the larger number must be heavily skewed toward older teenagers. Not relevant to the concept of performing a cost benefit analysis, but I found it interesting that only 1k per year die in car accidents.

---

I don't see anyone saying the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. Certainly not me, and I did not come close to making that argument. The fact is we don't know, so that should be part of the analysis when determining if our children should get vaccinated for COVID, perhaps needlessly so. You projecting what others may be thinking does not make my point a false equivalence. I'm not saying more children have died in cars so it's okay to not vaccinate them. That would be a false equivalence. I'm saying we can make an educated decision even if there have been some deaths unrelated to us. We do it all the time in far more dangerous situations.

The issue is important to me as well as I am the guardian of two preschool grandchildren, and I'm hoping to have better data to make a sound decision when the time comes. I feel zippergate made a valid point to consider and shouldn't be immediately shot down just because I am not a family member of any of the 300 COVID related child deaths (age defined by the individual states doing the tracking).

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

Remember, my response was to the assertion that one ought not perform a cost-benefit analysis unless they have had a loved one pass. My simple (some would say facile) example suggested otherwise. It's fine if you now want to bring up other arguments, but I would prefer you don't accuse me of false equivalences.

---

Sure, fair point if we had left it at your original facile argument which ignored the vast majority of the cost from COVID in the high-level cost benefit discussion. If you were merely intending to make the point that we perform cost benefit analysis all the time, why reference the fact that kids are 10x more likely to die in a car accident? If you are going to hint at a cost benefit analysis with some rough indication of magnitude, don't you think it's fair to at least attempt to take a more comprehensive view? You made an explicit equivalence between the two and ignored everything except the number of deaths. How is that not a false equivalence?

I'm not just picking on you - I see this sort of false equivalence all of the time and it's not a partisan issue as it happens across all categories of participants. The issue of vaccinating children is important to me as I have two young ones and will need to consider my choices at some point assuming they become eligible. Right now they are at school in person and wear masks at just about all times. They don't really seem to mind but I wonder what the mental burden is from having to wear a mask as well as my mental burden in having to remind them. I also have to consider how to balance the potential ramifications of catching COVID against vaccination. I am not only looking at the short term death total because that's not a comprehensive evaluation of the cost of COVID to children. Of course we don't know whether there are longer term costs from the vaccine either but I see a lot of people falsely assuming that because COVID hasn't been proven to kill that many children in the short term, that the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. That sort of false equivalence is dangerous - we are assuming away unknown costs from COVID and baking in unknown costs of the vaccine. That's an incredibly poor way to do a cost benefit analysis and a dangerous way to manage a challenging public health situation.

Also I thought the 10x number you quoted sounded high so I did some checking. The NHTSA says only 1k children (14 and under) died in 2019 so the larger number must be heavily skewed toward older teenagers. Not relevant to the concept of performing a cost benefit analysis, but I found it interesting that only 1k per year die in car accidents.

---

I don't see anyone saying the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. Certainly not me, and I did not come close to making that argument. The fact is we don't know, so that should be part of the analysis when determining if our children should get vaccinated for COVID, perhaps needlessly so. You projecting what others may be thinking does not make my point a false equivalence. I'm not saying more children have died in cars so it's okay to not vaccinate them. That would be a false equivalence. I'm saying we can make an educated decision even if there have been some deaths unrelated to us. We do it all the time in far more dangerous situations.

The issue is important to me as well as I am the guardian of two preschool grandchildren, and I'm hoping to have better data to make a sound decision when the time comes. I feel zippergate made a valid point to consider and shouldn't be immediately shot down just because I am not a family member of any of the 300 COVID related child deaths (age defined by the individual states doing the tracking).

---

Sure, you're "just asking questions" but manage to keep saying "needlessly" or "unnecessarily" when discussing vaccinating children. If you don't intend to draw an equivalence between two unrelated things, perhaps you should avoid comparing their relative mortalities in the context of the discussion of cost benefit analysis.

I suggest you re-read your posts in this discussion - every single one skews anti-vaxxer. Zippergate is spreading anti-science anti-vaxxer rhetoric and you are supporting and enabling his misinformation. If that's not your intention, it's curious that you would only mention factors weighing against vaccination and none in favor. Perhaps if your intention was to be even-handed you would note that we don't yet know the long-term effects on children from COVID and that we have no reason to believe that it's "much better" for children to be exposed to COVID infection rather than be vaccinated to protect against that. Our national conversation has been absolutely polluted by this sort of skewed analysis and it is actively responsible for extenuating the pandemic and exacerbating the negative health impacts on our population.

If we want to "just ask questions" we can look at all of the people suffering from long COVID, all of the people who suffered long-term consequences from previous coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and the fact that at least one preprint study has shown that even children who had asymptomatic COVID cases are suffering from long-term impacts from COVID. Obviously more research needs to be done, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out vaccine skeptical rhetoric that ignores or seeks to minimize the impact of COVID on the infected.

Whether you meant to or not, you are supporting anti-vaxxer propaganda and not engaging in position neutral discussion.

---

You seem to want to ignore qualifiers like "perhaps needlessly". I use them because I am trying to convey my concern about vaccinating kids even if my mind is not made up. If I wasn't actually concerned then I wouldn't have much of a point. If you want to use that to paint me as an anti-vaxxer then there isn't much I can do about that. It's kind of funny though since I got my shots at the first opportunity and I encourage other adults to do the same.

I think it's you that needs to re-read my comments. None of them are outside the context of children and the vaccine. Again, if you want to project something further then there isn't much I can do about that either. And to suggest I should be listing plusses for vaccinating kids for COVID in my replies to you is quite laughable.

If you want to convince me kids need the vaccine then you should be able to make your case without the insults and projections. Heck, I am open to credible info. As I said my mind is not made up on the issue. But I have read enough of your posts on this board to know that is something you are not interested in.

Your last sentence is pure gold. Thank God we have you to call attention to any concerns related to the vaccines as anti-vaxxer propaganda.

Go ahead, you can have the last word.

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

---

Remember, my response was to the assertion that one ought not perform a cost-benefit analysis unless they have had a loved one pass. My simple (some would say facile) example suggested otherwise. It's fine if you now want to bring up other arguments, but I would prefer you don't accuse me of false equivalences.

---

Sure, fair point if we had left it at your original facile argument which ignored the vast majority of the cost from COVID in the high-level cost benefit discussion. If you were merely intending to make the point that we perform cost benefit analysis all the time, why reference the fact that kids are 10x more likely to die in a car accident? If you are going to hint at a cost benefit analysis with some rough indication of magnitude, don't you think it's fair to at least attempt to take a more comprehensive view? You made an explicit equivalence between the two and ignored everything except the number of deaths. How is that not a false equivalence?

I'm not just picking on you - I see this sort of false equivalence all of the time and it's not a partisan issue as it happens across all categories of participants. The issue of vaccinating children is important to me as I have two young ones and will need to consider my choices at some point assuming they become eligible. Right now they are at school in person and wear masks at just about all times. They don't really seem to mind but I wonder what the mental burden is from having to wear a mask as well as my mental burden in having to remind them. I also have to consider how to balance the potential ramifications of catching COVID against vaccination. I am not only looking at the short term death total because that's not a comprehensive evaluation of the cost of COVID to children. Of course we don't know whether there are longer term costs from the vaccine either but I see a lot of people falsely assuming that because COVID hasn't been proven to kill that many children in the short term, that the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. That sort of false equivalence is dangerous - we are assuming away unknown costs from COVID and baking in unknown costs of the vaccine. That's an incredibly poor way to do a cost benefit analysis and a dangerous way to manage a challenging public health situation.

Also I thought the 10x number you quoted sounded high so I did some checking. The NHTSA says only 1k children (14 and under) died in 2019 so the larger number must be heavily skewed toward older teenagers. Not relevant to the concept of performing a cost benefit analysis, but I found it interesting that only 1k per year die in car accidents.

---

I don't see anyone saying the unknown costs of the vaccine must be worse. Certainly not me, and I did not come close to making that argument. The fact is we don't know, so that should be part of the analysis when determining if our children should get vaccinated for COVID, perhaps needlessly so. You projecting what others may be thinking does not make my point a false equivalence. I'm not saying more children have died in cars so it's okay to not vaccinate them. That would be a false equivalence. I'm saying we can make an educated decision even if there have been some deaths unrelated to us. We do it all the time in far more dangerous situations.

The issue is important to me as well as I am the guardian of two preschool grandchildren, and I'm hoping to have better data to make a sound decision when the time comes. I feel zippergate made a valid point to consider and shouldn't be immediately shot down just because I am not a family member of any of the 300 COVID related child deaths (age defined by the individual states doing the tracking).

---

Sure, you're "just asking questions" but manage to keep saying "needlessly" or "unnecessarily" when discussing vaccinating children. If you don't intend to draw an equivalence between two unrelated things, perhaps you should avoid comparing their relative mortalities in the context of the discussion of cost benefit analysis.

I suggest you re-read your posts in this discussion - every single one skews anti-vaxxer. Zippergate is spreading anti-science anti-vaxxer rhetoric and you are supporting and enabling his misinformation. If that's not your intention, it's curious that you would only mention factors weighing against vaccination and none in favor. Perhaps if your intention was to be even-handed you would note that we don't yet know the long-term effects on children from COVID and that we have no reason to believe that it's "much better" for children to be exposed to COVID infection rather than be vaccinated to protect against that. Our national conversation has been absolutely polluted by this sort of skewed analysis and it is actively responsible for extenuating the pandemic and exacerbating the negative health impacts on our population.

If we want to "just ask questions" we can look at all of the people suffering from long COVID, all of the people who suffered long-term consequences from previous coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and the fact that at least one preprint study has shown that even children who had asymptomatic COVID cases are suffering from long-term impacts from COVID. Obviously more research needs to be done, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out vaccine skeptical rhetoric that ignores or seeks to minimize the impact of COVID on the infected.

Whether you meant to or not, you are supporting anti-vaxxer propaganda and not engaging in position neutral discussion.

---

You seem to want to ignore qualifiers like "perhaps needlessly". I use them because I am trying to convey my concern about vaccinating kids even if my mind is not made up. If I wasn't actually concerned then I wouldn't have much of a point. If you want to use that to paint me as an anti-vaxxer then there isn't much I can do about that. It's kind of funny though since I got my shots at the first opportunity and I encourage other adults to do the same.

I think it's you that needs to re-read my comments. None of them are outside the context of children and the vaccine. Again, if you want to project something further then there isn't much I can do about that either. And to suggest I should be listing plusses for vaccinating kids for COVID in my replies to you is quite laughable.

If you want to convince me kids need the vaccine then you should be able to make your case without the insults and projections. Heck, I am open to credible info. As I said my mind is not made up on the issue. But I have read enough of your posts on this board to know that is something you are not interested in.

Your last sentence is pure gold. Thank God we have you to call attention to any concerns related to the vaccines as anti-vaxxer propaganda.

Go ahead, you can have the last word.

---

I support Civil Bear here. I also got vaccinated at the first opportunity. Words critical of the current eua covid vaccines are met with immediate criticism. Words criticizing Fauci are met with immediate criticism. I hesitate to give these vaccines to my young kids. I believe that the serious adverse side effects are dismissed as unrelated because there is w push to vaccinate to get back to normal. There is a risk benefit analysis here. For example, is forced vaccination on a child worth it if the vulnerable are vaccinated? In a country such as Australia that can contain covid, are the current eua vaccines worth it for healthy adults?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I would love to take a look at the sort of risk benefit analysis you guys are talking about. I have nothing against rigorous analysis based on facts and data. The CDC and other public health officials certainly perform the same in evaluating whether to recommend vaccines for various populations.

What I do criticize is the sort of innumerate "just asking questions" that some people use to masquerade as "doing their own research". I haven't heard anything resembling a critical analysis of vaccine efficacy and safety measures against the risks of choosing to remain unvaccinated. Merely speculating as to potential risks on one side of the equation with no sense of magnitude or comparison to the risks on the other side of the equation is not analysis. It's straight out of the anti-vaxxer and anti-science playbook which is why I continue to say that you are promoting that agenda, whether intentionally or not.

Let's stop pretending that you guys are engaging in some sort of informed public health criticism. You may have a bias for inaction but don't mistake that for informed analysis or caution.

---

Per this study, the absolute risk of death from covid in high income countries is between 1-35 (depends on where you pick) per 100,000 for the age group 18-65. Chance of you getting a brain clot and die from this vaccine is 2.5 per 100,000, with absolute overall risk of getting a clot is 11/100,000. If you have no comorbidity and under 65, why would anyone want that risk... or why would a child take that risk?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denmark-norway-study-finds-slightly-231624525.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307854

Chabbear said:

---

Lets be clear. Your first citation is for the AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine which is not approved by the FDA.

Also,the second citation is from 9/2020 and taken from "Cross-sectional survey of countries and US states with at least 800 COVID-19 deaths as of April 24, 2020 and with information on the number of deaths in people with age <65.


Neither one is really adequate to base anything on.

---

Let's be clear.

You are allowed to analyze the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Feel free to provide whatever alternate source to get covid death rates that you feel is more accurate.

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I would love to take a look at the sort of risk benefit analysis you guys are talking about. I have nothing against rigorous analysis based on facts and data. The CDC and other public health officials certainly perform the same in evaluating whether to recommend vaccines for various populations.

What I do criticize is the sort of innumerate "just asking questions" that some people use to masquerade as "doing their own research". I haven't heard anything resembling a critical analysis of vaccine efficacy and safety measures against the risks of choosing to remain unvaccinated. Merely speculating as to potential risks on one side of the equation with no sense of magnitude or comparison to the risks on the other side of the equation is not analysis. It's straight out of the anti-vaxxer and anti-science playbook which is why I continue to say that you are promoting that agenda, whether intentionally or not.

Let's stop pretending that you guys are engaging in some sort of informed public health criticism. You may have a bias for inaction but don't mistake that for informed analysis or caution.

---

Per this study, the absolute risk of death from covid in high income countries is between 1-35 (depends on where you pick) per 100,000 for the age group 18-65. Chance of you getting a brain clot and die from this vaccine is 2.5 per 100,000, with absolute overall risk of getting a clot is 11/100,000. If you have no comorbidity and under 65, why would anyone want that risk... or why would a child take that risk?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denmark-norway-study-finds-slightly-231624525.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307854

---

The probability of getting an mRNA vaccine and getting a clot and dying is perhaps 0. Or very, very close to 0. You should not spread lies.

---

I am not spreading lies whatsoever. In no way whatsoever was I misleading anybody about which vaccine I was discussing and fully expected a response to point out it was the Astra Zeneca vaccine and proceed to trash it.

There is absolutely a risk of blood clots with the eua vaccines. All three of them.

Did you know the JnJ p3 trial was halted and the reason was never made public? It is in the trial data but the msm refuses to write about it. A 25 year old male developed cvst and hemorrhage 8 days post vaccination. The trial investigator said the vaccine caused it. Jnj reviewed it with the investigator and said no it did not. Then, when Fauci discussed JnJ brain blood clots, he underplayed the number vs those vaccinated. During the second halt, the number doubled. The numbers cited were misleading with the sole goal to maintain the belief that the vaccine was safe

Is MRNA safer than JnJ as far as blood clotting? We do not know. Jnj and AZN asked Moderna and Pfizer to participate in a study to find out why the covid vaccines are causing serious clotting. Moderna and Pfizer refused.

Moderna and Pfizer have clotting issues as well. I linked a scientific publication earlier in this thread indicating that the spike protein itself is causing this. MRNA and Pfizer encode for the complete spike protein.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-teen-hospitalized-with-blood-clots-in-his-brain

How many times can experts say unrelated to the vaccine and still keep a straight face?

ironically... https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=94090

There is more serious side effect data in the VAERS database from covid vaccines than the entire accumulated history of the VAERS database across all vaccines besides the current eua ones. Is this an antivaxxer conspiracy? Did they all decide the not make up events for flu vaccines but just fraudently post such about covid eua vaccines in record numbers?

The government and big pharma are aligned here. The U.S. wants to open up. They want to support JnJ, Pfizer, and the NIH/Moderna. The NIH designed and patented Moderna's vaccine. By the way, Biden's offer to waive IP protections here does nothing to help low income countries make generic covid vaccines. All it does is give away the IP of the clinical biotechs to big pharma. Pfizer's vaccine is BioNTech, based in Germany. Merkel said No. The way to help the world produce more vaccine is to reverse Biden's previous decision to give Pfizer, JnJ, and Moderna a monopoly on all U.S. vaccine manufacturing supplies.

By the way, the public/private covid force, implemented more than a year ago, is co-chaired by an executive with the nih who has an interest in the moderna patent and the cmo of JnJ. Also, the previous head of the FDA is on the board of Pfizer and is a key source of public info on the vaccines.

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Moderna and Pfizer have clotting issues as well. I linked a scientific publication earlier in this thread indicating that the spike protein itself is causing this. MRNA and Pfizer encode for the complete spike protein.

---

How did you get to the point where you lie to people on the internet on matters of life and death? I think you should take a step back and figure that out. I mean I hope no one listens, but you never know. You dress it up with words that sound like arguments and links but that are meaningless. In the US more than 140 million people have gotten an mRNA vaccine. It is unclear if any have died of clotting issues. There are no other words that need to be said on the topic.

---

Your emotions are clouding your logic. I think you are calling me a liar because you want to believe that mrna vaccines do not have serious side effects because you want a solution to covid 19. It is not that easy. I believe that the U.S. bet on this horse, and the establishment is backing it. You believe in the establishment. The U.S. was able to reject AZN before relying on it because the UK and AZN were ahead of the US vaccines.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Moderna and Pfizer have clotting issues as well. I linked a scientific publication earlier in this thread indicating that the spike protein itself is causing this. MRNA and Pfizer encode for the complete spike protein.

---

How did you get to the point where you lie to people on the internet on matters of life and death? I think you should take a step back and figure that out. I mean I hope no one listens, but you never know. You dress it up with words that sound like arguments and links but that are meaningless. In the US more than 140 million people have gotten an mRNA vaccine. It is unclear if any have died of clotting issues. There are no other words that need to be said on the topic.

---

I want to believe oski003 is operating in good faith but he applies so little critical analysis to anything he can find to support his position. If only he were as critical of the anti-vaxxer talking points as he is of public health officials, he might have some more credibility here. For example, the anti-vaxxer playbook is to only talk about deaths for people without comorbidities, despite the prevalence of comorbidities in the US and the fact that there are a lot of negative outcomes short of death. I'm glad that my child has a very low risk of short-term death from COVID, but if the vaccine can greatly reduce or eliminate the risk of severe infection and long-term impact, it would be worth it, even in the face of potential side effects. The question is largely around magnitude which is why numeracy matters and that's where the lack of rigor in these anti-vaxxer arguments is so problematic. They get to pick and choose which data to present without any perspective.

I really hope the only message that vaccine hesitant people take away from this thread is that they should speak to their physician because if "doing your own research" means you are learning something from oski003, Unit2Sucks or anyone else here, you are doing your family and community a disservice.

---

I talked about far more than a death from a person without a comorbidity. The reason someone cites a side effect from someone without a comorbidity is obvious. For example, if I cite this one, the pitchforks will immediately jump on how vulnernable she was to other causes of death due to her obesity. In this case, local authorities refused to fully investigate cause of death despite it happening immediately after taking the Pfizer vaccine. I am pro-safe vaccines, which is pretty much all of them.

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/health/vp-nw-coronavirus-medical-examiners-report-20210507-6xehlfk3wjdfnmak6jar3uf3ee-story.html

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Moderna and Pfizer have clotting issues as well. I linked a scientific publication earlier in this thread indicating that the spike protein itself is causing this. MRNA and Pfizer encode for the complete spike protein.

---

How did you get to the point where you lie to people on the internet on matters of life and death? I think you should take a step back and figure that out. I mean I hope no one listens, but you never know. You dress it up with words that sound like arguments and links but that are meaningless. In the US more than 140 million people have gotten an mRNA vaccine. It is unclear if any have died of clotting issues. There are no other words that need to be said on the topic.

---

I want to believe oski003 is operating in good faith but he applies so little critical analysis to anything he can find to support his position. If only he were as critical of the anti-vaxxer talking points as he is of public health officials, he might have some more credibility here. For example, the anti-vaxxer playbook is to only talk about deaths for people without comorbidities, despite the prevalence of comorbidities in the US and the fact that there are a lot of negative outcomes short of death. I'm glad that my child has a very low risk of short-term death from COVID, but if the vaccine can greatly reduce or eliminate the risk of severe infection and long-term impact, it would be worth it, even in the face of potential side effects. The question is largely around magnitude which is why numeracy matters and that's where the lack of rigor in these anti-vaxxer arguments is so problematic. They get to pick and choose which data to present without any perspective.

I really hope the only message that vaccine hesitant people take away from this thread is that they should speak to their physician because if "doing your own research" means you are learning something from oski003, Unit2Sucks or anyone else here, you are doing your family and community a disservice.

---

I talked about far more than a death from a person without a comorbidity. The reason someone cites a side effect from someone without a comorbidity is obvious. For example, if I cite this one, the pitchforks will immediately jump on how vulnernable she was to other causes of death due to her obesity. In this case, local authorities refused to fully investigate cause of death despite it happening immediately after taking the Pfizer vaccine. I am pro-safe vaccines, which is pretty much all of them.

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/health/vp-nw-coronavirus-medical-examiners-report-20210507-6xehlfk3wjdfnmak6jar3uf3ee-story.html

---

It's obvious but not for the reason you are averring. It's typically because anti-vaxxers have to put their thumb on the scale (so to speak) on both sides. They minimize the impacts of the disease (COVID) in this case by noting that mortality rates are low for those without comorbidities, while completely ignoring all consequences short of death. They maximize the negative impacts of the vaccine as we've seen the last few pages.

If you don't believe me, believe your eyes. Zippergate said in this very thread "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."

---

Covid MIGHT be less dangerous because they might have the tools to immediately fight it off before infection and therefore not catch it. Fighting it off might then provide more tools to fight off future variants. Obviously, extreme exposure will overwhelm these defenses. Vaccines are a case of extreme exposure, in this case, to one element of the virus. That element may not be completely safe.

---

Sure, lots of things MIGHT be true but you are just making stuff up again. You obviously are here pushing an agenda and take every opportunity to further your narrative. Why you are doing so only you can say, but it's quite obvious what you are doing.

I guess I can ask my doctor whether I should be more worried about stuff that oski003 makes up and disseminated over the internet or things like MIS-C that we know exist, with no mights or maybes involved. There have already been more than 3,000 documented cases of MIS-C in the US which we know is a reaction to COVID in children. We also know that some children are suffering from long COVID, even those who had mild cases. These negative impacts are real and pretty scary for parents and children.

Honestly I hope this whole threat gets nuked because it's chock full of dangerous and disingenuous speculation masquerading as truth-seeking or, even worse, guidance.

---

Of course you want this thread nuked. You have a strong belief and are not open to hearing the other side. You want the other side silenced and use insults and labels.

Also, my toddler kids wear masks at school and outside the house or car etc... we sanitize after touching things in public etc... I still fear covid, and I still am very unsure if I would let them get a current eua vaccine.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Of course you want this thread nuked. You have a strong belief and are not open to hearing the other side. You want the other side silenced and use insults and labels.

---

The fact that you think you are on "the other side" pretty much says it all. I don't think people should be spreading false or misleading information on the internet under the guise of advocacy for a "side" in the public health debate.

oski003 said:

---

Also, my toddler kids wear masks at school and outside the house or car etc... we sanitize after touching things in public etc... I still fear covid, and I still am very unsure if I would let them get a current eua vaccine.

---

I'm in a similar position but with kids slightly older. I'm still somewhat hopeful that we can get community spread down to a point where it won't matter as much whether people vaccinate their young children. At this point however, there is no decision to be made as no vaccines have been authorized for young children, EUA or otherwise.

Unfortunately, due to people spreading dangerous misinformation which malign vaccines, as you are doing on BI, vaccine hesitancy may limit our ability to reduce the level of community spread which would change the calculus on whether to vaccinate children. What you think you are doing and what people like you are actually doing are two different things. In reality, baseless anti-vaxxer rhetoric is reducing vaccination rates and making it harder to achieve herd immunity because uninformed people who are "doing their own research" read what you write and it contributes to their hesitancy.

I'm fortunate to live in SF where there is very little hesitancy. We are already at 65% of all people having received at least one dose in SF (74% of people over 16) so it will be interesting to see where we end up and what level of community spread exists once everyone who wants a vaccine here has received one.

---

Yes, I am on the side who is willing to discuss the risks of these vaccines on this forum and risk being attacked and called a liar for doing so. I believe that these thoughts are silenced for the reasons you stated. I want the U.S. to support more vaccine development instead of hitching their wagon to JnJ, Pfizer, and Moderna/NIH. I want resources allocated to developing a safe vaccine. A safe vaccine will likely eventually be developed as a booster, but the U.S. has impeded the progress.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.

oski003 said:

---

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.

---

4) Talk to your pediatrician and follow his/her advice. If you don't trust your pediatrician to give you good advice, why in the world would you trust him/her to provide overall medical care for your child?

Medicine is all about trust. If you trust your MD, listen to them. If you don't trust your MD, find one you do trust.

Stop going to Dr. Internet and start seeing (and listening to) a trustworthy licensed, board-certified medical doctor.

71Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/tct/89143

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/27/are-rare-cases-of-myocarditis-linked-to-pfizer-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

What is the appropriate belief so as not to be a climate denier?

1) There is no relationship between mrna vaccines, clotting, and heart damage; or

2) There might be a relationship but encourage more youth to get vaccinated because the risk to them of covid damage is currently known to be greater than the risk of vaccine damage; or

3) There might be a relationship, the individual risk may be greater from the vaccine, but society needs herd immunity. Maintain the optics that these are the only vaccines, and we need them to get past covid 19.

---

4) Talk to your pediatrician and follow his/her advice. If you don't trust your pediatrician to give you good advice, why in the world would you trust him/her to provide overall medical care for your child?

Medicine is all about trust. If you trust your MD, listen to them. If you don't trust your MD, find one you do trust.

Stop going to Dr. Internet and start seeing (and listening to) a trustworthy licensed, board-certified medical doctor.

---

I think we have a winner here!!!

Hey, the knuckle dragger is back! Did you miss me?
No point in dialoging; most here are all too content to sit atop Dunning-Kruger's first peak as you bully and shame with appeals to authority anyone with the temerity to question Science. Like everyone else here, I'm not a scientist but here's the difference: I admit my understanding is limited and remain open to viewpoints from a variety of perspectives. Some here actually think they have a handle on the immune system (it's all about antibodies) and understand the risks (anaphylaxis). ROFL. Go ahead, vax your teens. And if now or down the line they suffer serious harm, own it. It's on you. And no, I feel no responsibility whatsoever to protect you by giving gene therapy to my kids. Call it whatever you like, I don't care. When there is proper data over a reasonable period of time documenting safety, then and only then will I feel an obligation to have them vaxed for your benefit because it will not be for theirs. Even if I'm wrong and the vaccine is totally safe for teens, I'm still right. You either believe in the process or you don't.

For those with ears to hear, Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer at Pfizer.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/05/03/michael-yeadon-what-is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-really-manufacturing/

Oski003,
Have you seen this?

http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_vanessa_schmidt_krueger/?fbclid=IwAR220l5NgpR6vgIDKKZYdFCMfE44nqv2jawO8UQat0kYDX4JIg9bVuLkzcM

Lots of interesting comments on LNPs, PEG, insufficient control and documentation of production, inadequate testing, etc.