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.
I also remember the experts (either Fauci or Shane Crotty) saying that ever single virus is different not one is the same as another and nobody knows for sure how this one will behave. (look it up. It is true!) So time would be needed to see how Covid virus would react to vaccines etc.
So here we are 3 years later and antivaxxers are pointing to this as proof that they were right and infectious disease experts were wrong.
Let's grant this was once true -- scientific process and all.
How do you explain an "expert" like Peter Hotez getting everything about kids and rona wrong up to and including the present? At what point do COVID maximalists like him back down from the overwhelming mass of evidence against them (open schools, no masking, very low vax and, for older kids, booster rates)?
Thoughts and prayers for Ed Yong though, still-- the rona broke him, despite his Bun Dance of Caution.
There is no substantive reason for you to live in terror of the mRNA vaccines.
Spreading unfounded negative propaganda about the vaccines makes you an antivaxxer.
I strongly encourage you to return to the side of data and reason. I can sense you are not yet lost forever like DanM and others.
the virus isn’t the problem anymore in all but a small subset of patients
Considering the severe side effects from vaccination are far, far more rare than this 'small subset' of COVID patients you refer to, I again must question why you are so worked up about the vaccines vs. the virus.
You'll openly dismiss risks of the virus for being rare and negligible but.. won't do the same for the vaccine even though the data shows orders-of-magnitude less risk.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
who needs to disprove your points when you do it for me?
here is a point that actually does stand. The more chances you give the virus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
Plenty of people have spike proteins circulating in them for a year after COVID infection.
the virus isn’t the problem anymore in all but a small subset of patients
Considering the severe side effects from vaccination are far, far more rare than this 'small subset' of COVID patients you refer to, I again must question why you are so worked up about the vaccines vs. the virus.
You'll openly dismiss risks of the virus for being rare and negligible but.. won't do the same for the vaccine even though the data shows orders-of-magnitude less risk.
Intriguing.
Harambe, you and I are done here, & I am done with this thread after this post. Because we aren’t going to agree.
You are correct that side effects are rare in the short term. I cannot and will not argue that. But we don’t have the “data” fully in yet. Because the control group, truly, are the unvaccinated. I am in the control group. You are not. We do not and can not possibly know if you’ve shortened your own life span, which, of course, can never be tied back to the jabs. You can say vaccines don’t work like that, but, again, this is not an ordinary vaccine. You may have caused yourself subtle and silent damage to an organ like your heart that will not manifest right away.
When I say small subset of patients, I’m referring to the obese and/or elderly. Which is not a small subset actually and which is a group that should be and should’ve been vaccinated. But nobody else. We’ve had therapeutics to treat these groups or anyone unwilling to get vaccinated from the beginning, and it was a way to cultivate broad and durable immunity. I might be singing a different tune about the jabs if they could’ve been administered nasally and elicited a secretory IgA response in the mucosa to actually completely stop transmission with one dose. But they don’t.
Again, you won’t convince me w short term data and I won’t convince you. We have both staked our positions. I’ve had Covid and believe a vaccine now to be totally unnecessary. Again, I am the control group, you are not.
I am using Firefox v106, Erik or any other web guys. I just click 'post reply' once and then get an error 'you are posting too fast' that I then close and leave the page.
Yep. Especially an immunocompromised but “vaccinated” patient who can partially sterilize the virus.
Replicative cycle is 5-7 days, no matter the vaccination status, in an immunocompetent host.
You say this a lot. This is the length of time that people shed infectious virus during COVID infection. This is not the length of time until all viral fragments are cleared from the body.
I’m not disagreeing. That wasn’t the point or the argument.
Harambe, you and I are done here, & I am done with this thread after this post. Because we aren’t going to agree.
You are correct that side effects are rare in the short term. I cannot and will not argue that. But we don’t have the “data” fully in yet. Because the control group, truly, are the unvaccinated. I am in the control group. You are not. We do not and can not possibly know if you’ve shortened your own life span, which, of course, can never be tied back to the jabs. You can say vaccines don’t work like that, but, again, this is not an ordinary vaccine. You may have caused yourself subtle and silent damage to an organ like your heart that will not manifest right away.
When I say small subset of patients, I’m referring to the obese and/or elderly. Which is not a small subset actually and which is a group that should be and should’ve been vaccinated. But nobody else. We’ve had therapeutics to treat these groups or anyone unwilling to get vaccinated from the beginning, and it was a way to cultivate broad and durable immunity. I might be singing a different tune about the jabs if they could’ve been administered nasally and elicited a secretory IgA response in the mucosa to actually completely stop transmission with one dose. But they don’t.
Again, you won’t convince me w short term data and I won’t convince you. We have both staked our positions. I’ve had Covid and believe a vaccine now to be totally unnecessary. Again, I am the control group, you are not.
You could make basically all of these exact arguments about COVID infection itself AND you must rate the risk of future long term damage higher for COVID given:
1) the acute damage caused by COVID is more common and more severe
2) there are known biological mechanisms of long term damage caused by respiratory viral infections. There are non for the vaccine.
3) there is already data showing long-term damage from COVID infections. Any reports of similar from the vaccine are vanishingly rare in comparison.
None of these points are disputable.
In essence, your argument is reduced to 'well, you never know, maybe the vaccine will give you cancer one day! you can't prove otherwise!' This is borderline puerile application of a precautionary fallacy that I am positive you do not consistently apply to any other new technologies in your life.
Simply put, my position is rationally supported. Yours is not. We don't have to agree but I can't abide the false equivalence of rhetorical rigor here.
Harambe, you and I are done here, & I am done with this thread after this post. Because we aren’t going to agree.
You are correct that side effects are rare in the short term. I cannot and will not argue that. But we don’t have the “data” fully in yet. Because the control group, truly, are the unvaccinated. I am in the control group. You are not. We do not and can not possibly know if you’ve shortened your own life span, which, of course, can never be tied back to the jabs. You can say vaccines don’t work like that, but, again, this is not an ordinary vaccine. You may have caused yourself subtle and silent damage to an organ like your heart that will not manifest right away.
When I say small subset of patients, I’m referring to the obese and/or elderly. Which is not a small subset actually and which is a group that should be and should’ve been vaccinated. But nobody else. We’ve had therapeutics to treat these groups or anyone unwilling to get vaccinated from the beginning, and it was a way to cultivate broad and durable immunity. I might be singing a different tune about the jabs if they could’ve been administered nasally and elicited a secretory IgA response in the mucosa to actually completely stop transmission with one dose. But they don’t.
Again, you won’t convince me w short term data and I won’t convince you. We have both staked our positions. I’ve had Covid and believe a vaccine now to be totally unnecessary. Again, I am the control group, you are not.
You could make basically all of these exact arguments about COVID infection itself AND you must rate the risk of future long term damage higher for COVID given:
1) the acute damage caused by COVID is more common and more severe
2) there are known biological mechanisms of long term damage caused by respiratory viral infections. There are non for the vaccine.
3) there is already data showing long-term damage from COVID infections. Any reports of similar from the vaccine are vanishingly rare in comparison.
None of these points are disputable.
In essence, your argument is reduced to 'well, you never know, maybe the vaccine will give you cancer one day! you can't prove otherwise!' This is borderline puerile application of a precautionary fallacy that I am positive you do not consistently apply to any other new technologies in your life.
Simply put, my position is rationally supported. Yours is not. We don't have to agree but I can't abide the false equivalence of rhetorical rigor here.
Harambe, you and I are done here, & I am done with this thread after this post. Because we aren’t going to agree.
You are correct that side effects are rare in the short term. I cannot and will not argue that. But we don’t have the “data” fully in yet. Because the control group, truly, are the unvaccinated. I am in the control group. You are not. We do not and can not possibly know if you’ve shortened your own life span, which, of course, can never be tied back to the jabs. You can say vaccines don’t work like that, but, again, this is not an ordinary vaccine. You may have caused yourself subtle and silent damage to an organ like your heart that will not manifest right away.
When I say small subset of patients, I’m referring to the obese and/or elderly. Which is not a small subset actually and which is a group that should be and should’ve been vaccinated. But nobody else. We’ve had therapeutics to treat these groups or anyone unwilling to get vaccinated from the beginning, and it was a way to cultivate broad and durable immunity. I might be singing a different tune about the jabs if they could’ve been administered nasally and elicited a secretory IgA response in the mucosa to actually completely stop transmission with one dose. But they don’t.
Again, you won’t convince me w short term data and I won’t convince you. We have both staked our positions. I’ve had Covid and believe a vaccine now to be totally unnecessary. Again, I am the control group, you are not.
In essence, your argument is reduced to 'well, you never know, maybe the vaccine will give you cancer one day! you can't prove otherwise!' This is borderline puerile application of a precautionary fallacy that I am positive you do not consistently apply to any other new technologies in your life.
Simply put, my position is rationally supported. Yours is not. We don't have to agree but I can't abide the false equivalence of rhetorical rigor here.
Then don’t abide. The new technological metaphor doesn’t apply because one can cultivate broad and durable immunity without the vaccine with just a few therapeutic options in both the high risk and low risk groups, so adoption of mRNA was unnecessary for some cohorts.
Also, I know three people in my inner circle who died after vaccination, two in their sleep and one from an exploratory surgery after her post-vaccination decline. You can say I made them up or can’t prove it, but they absolutely existed, and that’s three times as many people who died from Covid in the same circle. Yes, that’s a really $hitty, short-sighted, and disingenuous approach to analyzing data, but it’s still my experience.
Did people die with Covid? Absolutely. Does Long Covid exist? Yes. Both are sad because we had therapeutic options to thwart the virus, as well it’s inflammatory and thrombotic side effects. FDA approved medicines.
It seems that a lot of antivax postions come down to anecdotal evidence if you are allowed to peel enough layers. I have a very good friend that has refused vaccines for himself and entire family for over 50 years due to a childhood experience that his mother perceived came from a tetanus shot.
It is ok to make such a decision like that for yourselves. But it is not ok to become an antivax proponent and scour the internet for proofs to crusade against decades of established healthcare that have saved millions of lives.