The COVID19 Vaccine Is Already Having Significant Negative Effects

The current uncertainty about transmission was the reason for phrasing it as “it seems like it will come down to”

If it doesn’t prevent transmission then the whole “help a stranger” bit goes out the window. I have acknowledged that elsewhere.

I suppose the one question is whether it does decrease transmission, but to a lesser extent than the 95% reduction of severe cases.

As long as that number exceeds 75% ( honestly probably a bit lower) then my numbers hold, as that would provide herd immunity. Below that the calculus does change, I think you would end up dividing 11.6 by the probability of transmission reduction to give the days incapacitated per year saved, so at 50% efficacy we would be talking up to 23.2 days incapacitated per year saved.

Again that would be high end

trashcan wrote:

Just curious, do you think all the doctors and politicians who say they are getting the vaccine are actually getting the vaccine or do you think there is some fakery going on?

0 chance this was not typed from a basement.

Harambe wrote:

Nobody is forced to do anything. Unclear what you are so mad about.

There are no lockdowns? There are no mandates? No one has to wear a mask to go shopping.

Small businesses haven't be shut down completely? You must be living on a different planet than the rest of us.

Also side effects are normal -- you expect an immune response and all that comes with is.

Exactly. Side effects like autism, dementia, paralysis, running down of the immune system and deaths are all completely normal results from vaccinations.

2600 bro wrote:

Yet Ted Cruz, Pence, and Joni Earnst have received. This conspiracy sure is hard to follow!

Sure they have.

dunes runner wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Nobody is forced to do anything. Unclear what you are so mad about.

There are no lockdowns? There are no mandates? No one has to wear a mask to go shopping.

Small businesses haven't be shut down completely? You must be living on a different planet than the rest of us.

Also side effects are normal -- you expect an immune response and all that comes with is.

Exactly. Side effects like autism, dementia, paralysis, running down of the immune system and deaths are all completely normal results from vaccinations.

Now the virus has mutated in England and is 70% more infectious.

Luckily the current vaccines are effective on this new virus. So they tell us.

They can't keep their lies straight.

Again, like runER/DR wrote, I am not super worked up over the mutation, it is not unexpected. Viruses mutate. Some mutations give them advantages. That advantage does not mean more lethality. While the U.K’s chief science officer said transmissibility could have increased by up to 70%, when you look at other scientist’s direct quotes in these stories, they certainly don’t seem to be making any dramatic statements. The more worrisome amount to “ it is possible that could spread more easily”

I think the U S policy makes sense, and it looks like some countries in Europe are stepping back after an initial overreaction.

The vaccine will likely work, but of course it will be tested. Again, this sort of thing happens with viruses. Lots of organisms + rapid reproduction—>lots of mutations.

Even “up to 70% gives a lot of wiggle room. It could be 1%”

I am not sure what you think is a lie..

Man Overboard wrote:

Less than 1/3 of hospital staff in a DC hospital are willing to get the Pfizer vaccine. They must be anti-science/anti-vaxxers?

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/staff-at-hospitals-in-dc-texas-turn-down-covid-19-vaccine.html

Yes, if you don't trust the never-been-used before, never been tested long term, very new vaccine then you are stupid, don't know science, don't have a clue about biology and are a racist who voted for Trump. There is no other possible explanation. The question is, if larger and larger fractions of the population proved to be non-scientific stupid Trump voters, then how the hell did Biden win the election? Crazy, we know Biden won, therefore everyone is into "woke science" enough that they should all be on-board with this new unproven vaccine. I don't get it. Don't you understand, we don't care about what happens to you, or your kids, it is about caring for others and the good of others. Please learn to not care about those you care about and only yourself, then you will understand that the virtue signalling does not work unless you all go along with our new Dogma. Sacrifice your family and their futures and their well-being for ours and we should be good. Got it?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Yes, if you don't trust the never-been-used before, never been tested long term, very new vaccine then you are stupid, don't know science, don't have a clue about biology and are a racist who voted for Trump.

There's a lot of dumb people in both political parties.

How can you not?

They are scaring us with stories of a far more dangerous mutated virus that is 70% more infectious.

But the vaccine developed for the original virus will work just fine on this new version.

Which is the lie?

I will try and be clearer.

1) the opinions I have seen coming from the scientists have not been showing great alarm over an increase in transmissibility

2) the opinions I have seen coming from scientists shows basically zero thought that it will have increased lethality

3) the opinions I have seen from scientists indicated they they think there is little probability it affects the vaccines effectiveness

4) what has happened with the mutation fits with my expectations of how viruses behave

5) all indications are that appropriate tests will be done, so that we are not left with JUST opinions and expectations

Among others Fauci has not been making a big deal about it. Again, you have to understand he is speaking in some sense as a doctor. Doctors will warn of risks and worst cases.

And I don’t know who “they” are. My suspicion is that “they” changes a lot. I expect some in the media to overplay or underplayjust about everything about this pandemic. I try to look for input from scientists and doctors.

Or to be more simple. Doubtful it is much more infectious 70% is highly unlikely. It is even more doubtful that vaccine doesn’t work.

.

Vulnerability to vaccine and transmissibility don’t need to track together.

Maybe you have to buy into the idea of"an abundance of caution" to get why people take certain steps to try to prevent disease or disaster. I've had some tough arguments with Climate Change deniers and resistors about this. People who have their kids vaccinated against the usual diseases, balk at government spending and participation in local, national and world Climate Change programs. They resist having themselves and their kids vaccinated against Covid.

One one hand I can not see any possible harm in taking all steps possible in the Climate Change programs, and I can see some reasons to go carefully and cautiously with new specific vaccines.

But, given all info and reasonable argumentation, wheres the harm in an abundance of caution?

Where's the good in not trying to protect ourselves, our families, country and the world?

Priorities!

Go back and look at the Covid news from last March and April.

All people id'ed as experts were saying the one thing we had to avoid was rushing a vaccine.

Which is what was done. But none of the people id'ed as experts are making a peep now about a rushed vaccines.

It's all bullspit. And it's bad for us.

The Unkle wrote:

Go back and look at the Covid news from last March and April.

All people id'ed as experts were saying the one thing we had to avoid was rushing a vaccine.

Which is what was done. But none of the people id'ed as experts are making a peep now about a rushed vaccines.

It's all bullspit. And it's bad for us.

Nope, went thru full Phase 1,2,3 trials.

Only thing that was "rushed" was patient recruitment, funding, and administration.

trashcan wrote:

Or to be more simple. Doubtful it is much more infectious 70% is highly unlikely. It is even more doubtful that vaccine doesn’t work.

.

Vulnerability to vaccine and transmissibility don’t need to track together.

Odd.

WE need new flu vaccines all the time because the flu mutates.

Now we are told Covid has mutated yet do not need a new vaccine.

I see you reply was disingenuous. Ignoring the fact that we have been told the virus has mutated and focusing solely on the allege increase in its level of contagiousness.

Harambe wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

Go back and look at the Covid news from last March and April.

All people id'ed as experts were saying the one thing we had to avoid was rushing a vaccine.

Which is what was done. But none of the people id'ed as experts are making a peep now about a rushed vaccines.

It's all bullspit. And it's bad for us.

Nope, went thru full Phase 1,2,3 trials.

Is that supposed to mean something?

Of course the vaccine was rushed.

The Unkle wrote:

trashcan wrote:

Or to be more simple. Doubtful it is much more infectious 70% is highly unlikely. It is even more doubtful that vaccine doesn’t work.

.

Vulnerability to vaccine and transmissibility don’t need to track together.

Odd.

WE need new flu vaccines all the time because the flu mutates.

Now we are told Covid has mutated yet do not need a new vaccine.

I see you reply was disingenuous. Ignoring the fact that we have been told the virus has mutated and focusing solely on the allege increase in its level of contagiousness.

Sorry, I thought it was implied that the contagiousness had to be a result of the mutation, and that concerns about response to vaccine was due to same. I also thought my post from 5:11 yesterday cleared that up.

. I believe I mentioned this earlier, but will repeat it here. We could have told you the virus would mutate when it was discovered. That is why I am not worked up. Viruses always mutate rapidly. The speed at which they mutate (which can vary from virus to virus) can make them more or less challenging to maintain an immunity against, Covid looks like it mutates about half as fast as the flu.

I am about as surprised by a virus mutating over a 9 month period while spread over a large population as I am by the sky getting dark within 24 hours of it getting light.

It is not a matter of IF it will mutate, but how MUCH it will mutate. Will it change how the virus affects on humans, and will it change how it responds to previously established immunity.?

My previous response addressed those latter 2 questions.

Is that clear? Is there another conern that you would like addressed? Is there a question that remains? I am trying to answer this in as straightforward and standard a manner as possible.

Again, much of this understanding has been standard boilerplate for many people for years. It is very disconcerting to have them perceived as disingenuous, lies, or partisan. I literally don't know which political side this explanation bolsters. I think it is the Conservative/do less side for the most part, but I suppose it depends on how extreme people want to go.