Why should I inject a vaccine that could kill me when I have no risk to be sick with covid ? A Thai boy told me, what can I reply him to push for vaccination ?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, wadman said:

There are reasons why vaccines go through a lengthy approval process.  If Covid wasn't so contagious, with so many people dying, covid vaccines would never have been approved so quickly.  It would have taken years and years.

 

Now with Covid causing this many deaths, it makes sense to fast track the vaccines.  The reasoning being that whatever risks you are taking with fast tracking the vaccines is (easily) being outweighted by the benefits. 

 

This is true for adults.  The point of the OP and my point also is, does that still hold for children?  Most studies have shown that children suffer only about 0.2% of all covid deaths.  As I have said before, if I had a child, I wouldn't vaccinate him/her (not yet).

 

You raised the issue of effects from vaccination arising years later, not me. As I pointed out, if it's the possibility of latent effects that concerns you, it makes more sense to be concerned about contracting covid rather than about being vaccinated.

[sirineou]

On 7/28/2021 at 12:28 PM, samtab said:

A Thai boy told me why should I inject a vaccine that could kill me when I have no risk to be sick with covid ?

I doubt any Thai boy said anything like that to the OP.  It is simply a thinly disguised attempt to start the dogs arguing. 

But even if the question was asked. the answer should be obvious to the OP. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by sirineou

[LA8RAT]

Starting talking to young Thai boys about pricks can never end well. 

[Jeffr2]

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I said, yes? 

I don't blame the left for the vaccines, I do blame the left for the mandates.

Many on the right, like me and Many of my friends are all pro mandates. But we're not following the radical right wing media outlets. Makes a huge difference. Trying to blame the "left" for this shows your bias. We're all in this together.

[Jeffr2]

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume you define "anti vaxxers" as anyone that opposes the mandates and "covid deniers" as anyone that does not think it comparable to small pox, yes? 

For a start, yes. Sad the virus, masks and vaccines have been made political. Terrible.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Jeffr2

[Jeffr2]

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'd like to know how those 12 vaccinated Thais at the Hua Hin restaurant caught their COVID.

Did they catch if from some 'super spreader'  not vaccinated?

Or did one of them catch it and infect everyone else?

Clearly the virus was easily transmitted in that case.

If the vaccine was highly effective in reducing transmission, why did so many of them catch it?

 

As far as I can see the evidence in this case, 12 fully vaccinated infected at one place of work, doesn't match the claims of reduced transmission.

 

It doesn't match the claims of reduced transmission if you aren't following the proper news.

[cdemundo]

The constant recycling of the same BS is tiresome.

The questions and concerns raised are always easily answered by anyone with sincere concerns.

The fact that they have been answered here repeatedly is significant because they are easily answered with a little effort.

The tedious, contentious, infantile, wise-a$$ comments are too tiresome to deal with.

 

 

 

[wadman]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

You raised the issue of effects from vaccination arising years later, not me. As I pointed out, if it's the possibility of latent effects that concerns you, it makes more sense to be concerned about contracting covid rather than about being vaccinated.

Governments clearly agree too, that the risk vs rewards of the vaccines are not cut and dried.  That's why the approval for children has taken much longer, and even now it's only for those aged 12 and above.  In a country like the US, anyone who wanted a vaccine has had that opportunity, so it's not a case of prioritizing for the old anymore.

 

Fact remains that these vaccines have been fast tracked greatly, and we just don't know all the risks that come with them.  If you are in the 70+ age group, run (don't walk) to get a vaccine.  For children at 0.2% of the risk...hmmmm...

 

[Jeffr2]

4 hours ago, johng said:

These allegations have also been  implied to the likes of Google and Facebook.

 

Also who checks the the fact check checkers    when they are funded by Johnson and Johnson ?

Please show a link proving J&J funds the well known fact checkers. Otherwise...

 

What he posted is correct.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts about sources of information has been removed.  Please stick to the topic in this thread.  

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, catturd said:

Ask colin powell about that, oh wait he died of "covid' while battling cancer, or perhaps he died of cancer, who really knows amidst all the mis-information.

Do they provide powerful protection against Myocarditis and Pericarditis or cause it?

I get u don't aspire to data that rocks your narrative world, but data and facts are not "zombie" or zombiism ( new word created here today)!

Clearly when it comes to statistics and the understanding of data, you are the mathematical equivalent of illiterate. Do you understand that you cherry-picking is a ridiculous and self indulgent way to do epidemiology? You seriously think that Colin Powell's death somehow proves your point. Anyone with even an inkling of understand how these things work would realize that you would have to compare Powell to other 84 year old males both vaccinated and unvaccinated. What more, they would have to compare him to 84 year old males who were being treated for multiple myeloma and were immunocompromised.

Had you bothered to do a little research you would find that one is far more likely to suffer from myocarditis and pericarditis if one is unvaccinated with the exception of young males. And that to date a vanishingly small number of deaths has resulted from this reaction. 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by placeholder

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed.

 

If you are going to use data to support your post you MUST include a link to its source or it will be removed.

[catturd]

Ok, here is the link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

 

Check Table 2, pg. 13

UK_Vaccine_surveillance_report-week_40.pdf

Edited October 19, 2021 by catturd

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, catturd said:

Ok, here is the link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

 

Check Table 2, pg. 13

UK_Vaccine_surveillance_report-week_40.pdfUnavailable

Did you bother to look at how those numbers you underline relate to the total pools of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects. In other words the numerator isn't enough. You also have to consider the denominator. Those 2 terms come from an arcane branch of mathematics known as arithmetic.

[cdemundo]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Clearly when it comes to statistics and the understanding of data, you are the mathematical equivalent of illiterate. Do you understand that you cherry-picking is a ridiculous and self indulgent way to do epidemiology? You seriously think that Colin Powell's death somehow proves your point. Anyone with even an inkling of understand how these things work would realize that you would have to compare Powell to other 84 year old males both vaccinated and unvaccinated. What more, they would have to compare him to 84 year old males who were being treated for multiple myeloma and were immunocompromised.

Had you bothered to do a little research you would find that one is far more likely to suffer from myocarditis and pericarditis if one is unvaccinated with the exception of young males. And that to date a vanishingly small number of deaths has resulted from this reaction. 

 

Colin Powell was 84 years old.

Today's headline?: "84 year old man dies".

Not really headline news or proof of anything.

[cdemundo]

10 hours ago, catturd said:

Ok, here is the link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

 

Check Table 2, pg. 13

UK_Vaccine_surveillance_report-week_40.pdfUnavailable

Statistics require interpretation.

Otherwise we might conclude that toupees cause baldness.

[wadman]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Did you bother to look at how those numbers you underline relate to the total pools of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects. In other words the numerator isn't enough. You also have to consider the denominator. Those 2 terms come from an arcane branch of mathematics known as arithmetic.

These reports for the UK, from week 36-39 2021, so very recent.  The 2 dose vaccination rate there was 60.1% at that time.

 

And if you cared to read the reports of the other weeks, you will find that the infection rates are quite similar to week 36-39.  i.e. that vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected are roughly the SAME RATE!  That is very surprising and troubling indeed.  

 

To be more precise: infection rates are much higher (2-3 times higher) for under 18, and 18-29 age groups.  Infection rates are slightly higher for vaccinated for the other age groups.  Overall it's not all that different, certainly nowhere near the 80-90% efficacy one would expect.

 

Although if you look at the other tables in the same reports, serious illness and deaths are vastly lower for the vaccinated. 

 

And just to get back to the OP, the death rate of those under 18 is 0.0 per 100,000 for both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

[placeholder]

18 hours ago, catturd said:

Ok, here is the link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

 

Check Table 2, pg. 13

UK_Vaccine_surveillance_report-week_40.pdfUnavailable

 

6 hours ago, wadman said:

These reports for the UK, from week 36-39 2021, so very recent.  The 2 dose vaccination rate there was 60.1% at that time.

 

And if you cared to read the reports of the other weeks, you will find that the infection rates are quite similar to week 36-39.  i.e. that vaccinated and unvaccinated are getting infected are roughly the SAME RATE!  That is very surprising and troubling indeed.  

 

To be more precise: infection rates are much higher (2-3 times higher) for under 18, and 18-29 age groups.  Infection rates are slightly higher for vaccinated for the other age groups.  Overall it's not all that different, certainly nowhere near the 80-90% efficacy one would expect.

 

Although if you look at the other tables in the same reports, serious illness and deaths are vastly lower for the vaccinated. 

 

And just to get back to the OP, the death rate of those under 18 is 0.0 per 100,000 for both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Thanks for your correction. It turns out that. at least in this case, I'm the numerically illiterate party. For what it's worth I misread the last 2 columns as being gross totals rather than rates. I was wrong. Absolutely wrong.

 

Here is a link to an article about the anomaly with suggestions as to why this might be the case.

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-11/COVID-19-vaccines-are-working-but-there-s-one-anomaly-in-UK-data-13rScGoGaxG/index.html

 

That said, obviously this statistic is far less important than hospitalization rates and mortality rates among the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. And there, the differences are stark and clear.: it is far more perilous to be unvaccinated than to be vaccinated.

 

 

[wadman]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

Thanks for your correction. It turns out that. at least in this case, I'm the numerically illiterate party. For what it's worth I misread the last 2 columns as being gross totals rather than rates. I was wrong. Absolutely wrong.

 

Here is a link to an article about the anomaly with suggestions as to why this might be the case.

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-11/COVID-19-vaccines-are-working-but-there-s-one-anomaly-in-UK-data-13rScGoGaxG/index.html

 

That said, obviously this statistic is far less important than hospitalization rates and mortality rates among the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. And there, the differences are stark and clear.: it is far more perilous to be unvaccinated than to be vaccinated.

 

 

That link says: "According to the report, 97.7 percent of the UK adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination."

 

At that time, the percentage of fully vaccinated was right around 60%.  So 37.7% got their antibodies from infection.  If you are not vaccinated but have the antibodies already, is it still worth it to get vaccinated?

Edited October 20, 2021 by wadman

[placeholder]

Just now, wadman said:

That link says: "According to the report, 97.7 percent of the UK adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination."

 

At that time, the percentage of fully vaccinated was right around 60%.  So 37.7% got their antibodies infection.  If you are not vaccinated but have the antibodies already, is it still worth it to get vaccinated?

Well given that large numbers of people are still being infected, I'd say the answer is yes even given the existence of that anomaly. Even if people in those age cohorts are getting infected less, they're getting seriously ill and dying a lot more.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

Yes. Always Vax . covid variants not “received” can infect covid recoverers from different variants.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

USA Vaxxes are 96% effective against death. Clearly the vaxxed Powell at 84 with myeloma cancer fell within the 4% not protected from death. Eight year old could figure that out. No other maths required. However, if he had taken AZ he should have survived as AZ near 100% effective against death from all covid variants.

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

USA Vaxxes are 96% effective against death. Clearly the vaxxed Powell at 84 with myeloma cancer fell within the 4% not protected from death. Eight year old could figure that out. No other maths required. However, if he had taken AZ he should have survived as AZ near 100% effective against death from all covid variants.

"Separate PHE research found that AstraZeneca's efficacy against hospitalization from Delta slipped from just above 90% to just under 80% after 140 days, while its efficacy against death remained close to 90%. Pfizer remained above 90% in both metrics."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/20/uk/uk-europe-covid-infections-cmd-gbr-intl/index.html

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1017309/S1362_PHE_duration_of_protection_of_COVID-19_vaccines_against_clinical_disease.pdf

Edited October 20, 2021 by placeholder

[Danderman123]

On 10/15/2021 at 1:46 AM, wadman said:

Governments clearly agree too, that the risk vs rewards of the vaccines are not cut and dried.  That's why the approval for children has taken much longer, and even now it's only for those aged 12 and above.  In a country like the US, anyone who wanted a vaccine has had that opportunity, so it's not a case of prioritizing for the old anymore.

 

Fact remains that these vaccines have been fast tracked greatly, and we just don't know all the risks that come with them.  If you are in the 70+ age group, run (don't walk) to get a vaccine.  For children at 0.2% of the risk...hmmmm...

 

Vaccination for children helps to stop the spread of the virus to other people. We’re trying to stop the epidemic, so, stopping the spread is important.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

insufficient “stop spreading” justification to vaxx kids. who they gonna spread it to ? unvaxxed by  choice adults …..they can take their chances…..and spread it only to others like them……

no, real reason is that Delta kills kids…..

[wadman]

53 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Vaccination for children helps to stop the spread of the virus to other people. We’re trying to stop the epidemic, so, stopping the spread is important.

1. Chances of the Corona virus disappearing in 10 years is virtually zero. Most likely it will stay with us for a very long time, or forever. The 1918 Spanish flu is still around (in mutated strains). So this virus will continue to spread, (some) governments have already switched the focus to preventing serious cases/hospitalization instead of preventing spread. 

 

2. There is the issue of what's good for the collective vs what's good for the individual. Vaccinating kids now (or soon) may be good for humanity overall. But is it good for the kids? 

 

Question: if you had a young child, would you vaccinate him/her ASAP? I wouldn't. 

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

insufficient “stop spreading” justification to vaxx kids. who they gonna spread it to ? unvaxxed by  choice adults …..they can take their chances…..and spread it only to others like them……

no, real reason is that Delta kills kids…..

Sadly, the unvaccinated by choice are one of the biggest problems now.

 

Delta kills everyone.

[Jeffr2]

38 minutes ago, wadman said:

1. Chances of the Corona virus disappearing in 10 years is virtually zero. Most likely it will stay with us for a very long time, or forever. The 1918 Spanish flu is still around (in mutated strains). So this virus will continue to spread, (some) governments have already switched the focus to preventing serious cases/hospitalization instead of preventing spread. 

 

2. There is the issue of what's good for the collective vs what's good for the individual. Vaccinating kids now (or soon) may be good for humanity overall. But is it good for the kids? 

 

Question: if you had a young child, would you vaccinate him/her ASAP? I wouldn't. 

It is good for the kids. And even better for all of us. No reason not to vaccinate children. Even the FDA agrees with that.

[Scott]

If you have had Covid, it's still a good idea to get vaccinated:

 

Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again.

 

f you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, wadman said:

1. Chances of the Corona virus disappearing in 10 years is virtually zero. Most likely it will stay with us for a very long time, or forever. The 1918 Spanish flu is still around (in mutated strains). So this virus will continue to spread, (some) governments have already switched the focus to preventing serious cases/hospitalization instead of preventing spread. 

 

2. There is the issue of what's good for the collective vs what's good for the individual. Vaccinating kids now (or soon) may be good for humanity overall. But is it good for the kids? 

 

Question: if you had a young child, would you vaccinate him/her ASAP? I wouldn't. 

Kids get sick and die from Covid, so vaccination is a good thing.

 

Would you get your kid vaccinated for measles or polio?

Edited October 20, 2021 by Danderman123