This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
No comment from our moderator on the BS article on 'all cause mortality' posted above? That's legitimate misinformation
The moderator is a moron who things we are “repeatedly and needlessly” vaccinating kids despite this being one of the lowest dose count and dose quantity vaccines kids take.
Guys, make my job easier and try to interpret what people are saying instead of twisting it to your ends and throwing a different argument back in their faces.
Your first question is fair. After that though you might be suffering from the rambles. It seems clear that this person finds it absurd that you would treat a person who is well-protected (against serious side-effects with a vaccine) with drugs when that person has no symptoms. I don't see how that's equivalent to hoping she dies.
Then again, I understand given that she's the VP and they don't wanna mess around.
TLDR: Strawman bad. Steelman good.
We have an oversupply of mAbs and Paxlovid because the Biden admin/FDA have been TERRIBLE about getting to info into doctors’ hands. It’s a no brainer for a person with moderate+ symptomatic COVID to hope on one of them. Especially if she’s the VP.
Quoted to remind people I am entirely nonpartisan. Simply anti-moron.
No comment from our moderator on the BS article on 'all cause mortality' posted above? That's legitimate misinformation
I appreciate your inquiry. Never do I claim to be the resident scientific expert! To clarify my self-appointed title, I'm just here trying to get everyone to play nice and facilitate communication.
Pouring through data and analyzing stats is not a role I feel I can assume and make significant contributions to within this thread. Plus, pointing out poor studies is an ecological niche you've filled quite nicely and I don't wish to compete.
What is missing in the thousands of posts is an attempt to smoothen the conversation from very passionate, but very different, points-of-view.
If you are thinking of giving your kid the jab you need to see this video first. Please inform yourself before you make up your mind. DISCLAIMER: Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the...
Thought the Mockingbird media, Big Pharma and bought-and-paid-for politicians are lying at every turn about the COVID shots, fraudulently referred to as vaccines, the reality is quite different and now, there are more than 1,...
Covid case data now comes without the politics from a surprising source…Walgreens. And the truth is, we are no longer in a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Check out this shocking data! POSTED: April 22, 2022
No comment from our moderator on the BS article on 'all cause mortality' posted above? That's legitimate misinformation
The moderator is a moron who things we are “repeatedly and needlessly” vaccinating kids despite this being one of the lowest dose count and dose quantity vaccines kids take.
It appears that you believe I was arguing with you about antibodies. How strange! You've proven yourself to have basic scientifically literacy, so I know you could do better than your attempt to reply to wazzu. I have confidence in you, 2600 bro.
I'd like you to point out where I said that we currently are repeatedly and needlessly vaccinating young children. I believe what you are referring to (and hopefully unintentionally misrepresenting) is my attempt of levity on p. 113 where I summarized what I thought was now a consensus, because certain people were making claims like "the vaccine isn't 100% effective" as if it was a point of contention. There is of course no need for anyone to mention this.
Please see the difference b/w your accusation and what I wrote, which was that there appeared to be a consensus that it would be unnecessary to continue to give young, healthy people a repeated dose to the original variant. I included this diligently when I saw Harambe make nearly this same statement. I would imagine he envisions either updating the vaccine at some point or placing more 4th booster emphasis on older people than kids , but if you disagree, you can ask him what he meant! Further, we currently don't offer 4th booster doses in the US to young, healthy people, so I would certainly not criticize us for doing that since it's not happening.
It's quite interesting that you would react to this statement with ad hominem, when it was in fact just a paraphrased version of something that I thought we all agreed on. I certainly meant no offense. If you happen to disagree and believe that we should start offering fourth booster doses with no update to the young and healthy, I'll update our list and add it back to the arguments that we all love to have. But I highly doubt it, because I give you enough credit and the benefit of the doubt.
The moderator is a moron who things we are “repeatedly and needlessly” vaccinating kids despite this being one of the lowest dose count and dose quantity vaccines kids take.
It appears that you believe I was arguing with you about antibodies. How strange! You've proven yourself to have basic scientifically literacy, so I know you could do better than your attempt to reply to wazzu. I have confidence in you, 2600 bro.
I'd like you to point out where I said that we currently are repeatedly and needlessly vaccinating young children. I believe what you are referring to (and hopefully unintentionally misrepresenting) is my attempt of levity on p. 113 where I summarized what I thought was now a consensus, because certain people were making claims like "the vaccine isn't 100% effective" as if it was a point of contention. There is of course no need for anyone to mention this.
Please see the difference b/w your accusation and what I wrote, which was that there appeared to be a consensus that it would be unnecessary to continue to give young, healthy people a repeated dose to the original variant. I included this diligently when I saw Harambe make nearly this same statement. I would imagine he envisions either updating the vaccine at some point or placing more 4th booster emphasis on older people than kids , but if you disagree, you can ask him what he meant! Further, we currently don't offer 4th booster doses in the US to young, healthy people, so I would certainly not criticize us for doing that since it's not happening.
It's quite interesting that you would react to this statement with ad hominem, when it was in fact just a paraphrased version of something that I thought we all agreed on. I certainly meant no offense. If you happen to disagree and believe that we should start offering fourth booster doses with no update to the young and healthy, I'll update our list and add it back to the arguments that we all love to have. But I highly doubt it, because I give you enough credit and the benefit of the doubt.
There is insufficient data in children to warrant a strong position for or against a 4th dose. As with all vaccine schedules, it will be empirically determined. Perhaps an updated vaccine will provide more robust variant protection or better mucosal immunity or prove ineffective in younger immune systems. Anyone making a claim one way or the other or acting like what’s going on is out-of-the ordinary is just wrong. You’re not a very good concern/faux-good-faith troll. But I’ll let you have your fun.
It appears that you believe I was arguing with you about antibodies. How strange! You've proven yourself to have basic scientifically literacy, so I know you could do better than your attempt to reply to wazzu. I have confidence in you, 2600 bro.
I'd like you to point out where I said that we currently are repeatedly and needlessly vaccinating young children. I believe what you are referring to (and hopefully unintentionally misrepresenting) is my attempt of levity on p. 113 where I summarized what I thought was now a consensus, because certain people were making claims like "the vaccine isn't 100% effective" as if it was a point of contention. There is of course no need for anyone to mention this.
Please see the difference b/w your accusation and what I wrote, which was that there appeared to be a consensus that it would be unnecessary to continue to give young, healthy people a repeated dose to the original variant. I included this diligently when I saw Harambe make nearly this same statement. I would imagine he envisions either updating the vaccine at some point or placing more 4th booster emphasis on older people than kids , but if you disagree, you can ask him what he meant! Further, we currently don't offer 4th booster doses in the US to young, healthy people, so I would certainly not criticize us for doing that since it's not happening.
It's quite interesting that you would react to this statement with ad hominem, when it was in fact just a paraphrased version of something that I thought we all agreed on. I certainly meant no offense. If you happen to disagree and believe that we should start offering fourth booster doses with no update to the young and healthy, I'll update our list and add it back to the arguments that we all love to have. But I highly doubt it, because I give you enough credit and the benefit of the doubt.
There is insufficient data in children to warrant a strong position for or against a 4th dose. As with all vaccine schedules, it will be empirically determined. Perhaps an updated vaccine will provide more robust variant protection or better mucosal immunity or prove ineffective in younger immune systems. Anyone making a claim one way or the other or acting like what’s going on is out-of-the ordinary is just wrong. You’re not a very good concern/faux-good-faith troll. But I’ll let you have your fun.
Covid-19 has ALWAYS been less dangerous to children than the typical seasonal flu.
There is insufficient data in children to warrant a strong position for or against a 4th dose. As with all vaccine schedules, it will be empirically determined. Perhaps an updated vaccine will provide more robust variant protection or better mucosal immunity or prove ineffective in younger immune systems. Anyone making a claim one way or the other or acting like what’s going on is out-of-the ordinary is just wrong. You’re not a very good concern/faux-good-faith troll. But I’ll let you have your fun.
Covid-19 has ALWAYS been less dangerous to children than the typical seasonal flu.
Nah… only for < 5 years old is the COVID IFR less than or equal to influenza.
Even if you ignore any direct disease effects, children have been greatly harmed by COVID. Schools closed, teachers sick, parents and grandparents dead, etc. Flu doesn’t do these things at anywhere near the scale.
It appears that you believe I was arguing with you about antibodies. How strange! You've proven yourself to have basic scientifically literacy, so I know you could do better than your attempt to reply to wazzu. I have confidence in you, 2600 bro.
I'd like you to point out where I said that we currently are repeatedly and needlessly vaccinating young children. I believe what you are referring to (and hopefully unintentionally misrepresenting) is my attempt of levity on p. 113 where I summarized what I thought was now a consensus, because certain people were making claims like "the vaccine isn't 100% effective" as if it was a point of contention. There is of course no need for anyone to mention this.
Please see the difference b/w your accusation and what I wrote, which was that there appeared to be a consensus that it would be unnecessary to continue to give young, healthy people a repeated dose to the original variant. I included this diligently when I saw Harambe make nearly this same statement. I would imagine he envisions either updating the vaccine at some point or placing more 4th booster emphasis on older people than kids , but if you disagree, you can ask him what he meant! Further, we currently don't offer 4th booster doses in the US to young, healthy people, so I would certainly not criticize us for doing that since it's not happening.
It's quite interesting that you would react to this statement with ad hominem, when it was in fact just a paraphrased version of something that I thought we all agreed on. I certainly meant no offense. If you happen to disagree and believe that we should start offering fourth booster doses with no update to the young and healthy, I'll update our list and add it back to the arguments that we all love to have. But I highly doubt it, because I give you enough credit and the benefit of the doubt.
There is insufficient data in children to warrant a strong position for or against a 4th dose. As with all vaccine schedules, it will be empirically determined. Perhaps an updated vaccine will provide more robust variant protection or better mucosal immunity or prove ineffective in younger immune systems. Anyone making a claim one way or the other or acting like what’s going on is out-of-the ordinary is just wrong. You’re not a very good concern/faux-good-faith troll. But I’ll let you have your fun.
I'm really unclear as to what your contention is. You repeated what I said, with a little extra scientific terminology, and then said I was trolling.
My point is of course that we all agree on basic things, so no need to refute these points. It seems you also agree that this is an unnecessary measure at this moment, and you don't need to convince me of that. So there's no drama, let's move on!
There is insufficient data in children to warrant a strong position for or against a 4th dose. As with all vaccine schedules, it will be empirically determined. Perhaps an updated vaccine will provide more robust variant protection or better mucosal immunity or prove ineffective in younger immune systems. Anyone making a claim one way or the other or acting like what’s going on is out-of-the ordinary is just wrong. You’re not a very good concern/faux-good-faith troll. But I’ll let you have your fun.
I'm really unclear as to what your contention is. You repeated what I said, with a little extra scientific terminology, and then said I was trolling.
My point is of course that we all agree on basic things, so no need to refute these points. It seems you also agree that this is an unnecessary measure at this moment, and you don't need to convince me of that. So there's no drama, let's move on!
How do you propose we figure out if it is necessary or unnecessary in the short or long term? We need to do observational and controlled studies. It could very well be optimal to give kids a third dose now! We need more data. I could be convinced it is actually safer to err on the side of a 3rd dose rather than wait for further data. Your premise that inaction is the default best-course is incredibly naive. You clearly have agenda and bias. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner we will take your posts seriously.
Counterpoint: I would like to give children dozens of doses just to make DanM upset.
If I reviewed these threads and read most of what has been posted over the last 500 days, I am certain that I would find other comments from you similar to this one.
Understood. Your true colors revealed, Mr. Harambe.
Counterpoint: I would like to give children dozens of doses just to make DanM upset.
If I reviewed these threads and read most of what has been posted over the last 500 days, I am certain that I would find other comments from you similar to this one.
Understood. Your true colors revealed, Mr. Harambe.
"The Finnish officials revised somewhat the methodology (ie. took some revisions in what counts as a Covid-19 related death).
Therefore data was somewhat difficult to find. But the absolute cumulative death numbers (Jan 2020-April 2022) are 717 (30-39 years) and 1,654 (40-49 years), as case fatality rates the figures would be 0.35 % and 0.96 % respectively with 205,900 and 172,900 cases. Not enormous, but not peanuts either. And likely most if not almost all had some comorbidities.
Would actually be interesting to hear both from pro- and anti-vaxxers, what would be a truly low / high case fatality rate (or total amount of deaths) for these age groups, when there has been 205900 cases (30-39 y-o) 172900 cases (40-49 y-o)?"
carmine9 didn't want to answer this question, don't know why (found the figures high?). I'd be interested to know if you have any opinion relating to this fatality-rate question that has been of interest to many people opposing lockdowns/mandates.
You can hold your (IMO autistic) opinion that everyone should always be vaccinated and that the risk in getting Covid-19 infected is always high, but you still should have some view about what case fatality rate counts as high/low, otherwise it doesn't look at all that you have paid any serious attention into the issue beneath of what Fauci told fifteen minutes ago.
"The Finnish officials revised somewhat the methodology (ie. took some revisions in what counts as a Covid-19 related death).
Therefore data was somewhat difficult to find. But the absolute cumulative death numbers (Jan 2020-April 2022) are 717 (30-39 years) and 1,654 (40-49 years), as case fatality rates the figures would be 0.35 % and 0.96 % respectively with 205,900 and 172,900 cases. Not enormous, but not peanuts either. And likely most if not almost all had some comorbidities.
Would actually be interesting to hear both from pro- and anti-vaxxers, what would be a truly low / high case fatality rate (or total amount of deaths) for these age groups, when there has been 205900 cases (30-39 y-o) 172900 cases (40-49 y-o)?"
carmine9 didn't want to answer this question, don't know why (found the figures high?). I'd be interested to know if you have any opinion relating to this fatality-rate question that has been of interest to many people opposing lockdowns/mandates.
You can hold your (IMO autistic) opinion that everyone should always be vaccinated and that the risk in getting Covid-19 infected is always high, but you still should have some view about what case fatality rate counts as high/low, otherwise it doesn't look at all that you have paid any serious attention into the issue beneath of what Fauci told fifteen minutes ago.
Again - there are other outcomes besides death that make minimization of disease desirable.
Everyone should be vaccinated for COVID just like we vaccinated everyone from polio (killed way way fewer people than COVID in the US), Tetanus, Diphtheria, HepB, etc. Iteratively decreasing the load on the healthcare system is a cumulatively positive thing.
No data ave shown remarkable risks to COVID vaccination. The primary concern, myocarditis, is more likely after COVID infection than vaccination.
No comment from our moderator on the BS article on 'all cause mortality' posted above? That's legitimate misinformation
I appreciate your inquiry. Never do I claim to be the resident scientific expert! To clarify my self-appointed title, I'm just here trying to get everyone to play nice and facilitate communication.
Pouring through data and analyzing stats is not a role I feel I can assume and make significant contributions to within this thread. Plus, pointing out poor studies is an ecological niche you've filled quite nicely and I don't wish to compete.
What is missing in the thousands of posts is an attempt to smoothen the conversation from very passionate, but very different, points-of-view.
The moderators on this board are all of a bunch of right wing nut jobs. Guarantee they are all vaccinated but have no problem questioning the vaccine? But don’t say any curse words or put someone like carmine in his place or they’ll block you. Talk about triggered.
