Not a debate, but seems like US authorities underestimating % people who won't get vaccinated. What you think?

I will take the absence of your usual denial as a concession that - through some miracle of self-awareness - I am correct. I have spent too long doing 9th grade statistics for you to admit the same about myself!

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

"Massive amount of cells"

"widely distributed through the body"

"the exposure is minimal and likely localized o nasal passage tissue"

Just saying things doesn't make them true.

Surely you can understand my incredulity. You force "facts" (assertions? wishes? fantasies?) into your heavily politically motivated framework regularly.

Until you can demonstrate your claims about mRNA dosing, viral dosing, viral tropism, localization of immune response/viral infection have any evidence behind them... I will remain convinced you just blissfully post-hoc rationalize everything to support your worldview :)

By the way - I've never really had a dog in the political fight. Something I'm sure we could have a friendly discussion about!

Do you realize you just described yourself above?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

"Massive amount of cells"

"widely distributed through the body"

"the exposure is minimal and likely localized o nasal passage tissue"

Just saying things doesn't make them true.

Surely you can understand my incredulity. You force "facts" (assertions? wishes? fantasies?) into your heavily politically motivated framework regularly.

Until you can demonstrate your claims about mRNA dosing, viral dosing, viral tropism, localization of immune response/viral infection have any evidence behind them... I will remain convinced you just blissfully post-hoc rationalize everything to support your worldview :)

By the way - I've never really had a dog in the political fight. Something I'm sure we could have a friendly discussion about!

Do you realize you just described yourself above?

Do corona viruses typically spread silently throughout the body posing long term risks in people that do not get sick? If this was the case then we should have been vaccinating for coronaviruses all of these years and all of the children out there have been doomed for decades. Again, You are not making any sense and you are getting more and more snarky every time someone points it out. Unhinged?

Do symptomatic coronavirus infections usually have the plethora of severe outcomes we've seen with COVID-19? Maybe SARS-CoV-2 is different from those other viruses. Remember SARS1 and SARS2 are as similar as humans and cows genetically - think about how different SARS2 is from all those other "minor" coronaviruses! Trust me, I understand what you are saying. I just don't buy that the vaccine poses more risk that COVID-19 - there's no compelling evidence for it and plenty of compelling evidence against it (comparatively high frequency ofL severe outcomes in COVID patients, long-term COVID symptoms, etc.). You have a contrived biological explanation for it but I'd love to see evidence!

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Do you realize you just described yourself above?

Do corona viruses typically spread silently throughout the body posing long term risks in people that do not get sick? If this was the case then we should have been vaccinating for coronaviruses all of these years and all of the children out there have been doomed for decades. Again, You are not making any sense and you are getting more and more snarky every time someone points it out. Unhinged?

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Do corona viruses typically spread silently throughout the body posing long term risks in people that do not get sick? If this was the case then we should have been vaccinating for coronaviruses all of these years and all of the children out there have been doomed for decades. Again, You are not making any sense and you are getting more and more snarky every time someone points it out. Unhinged?

Corona viruses don't usually kill 500k people in America, so I'm not sure we should rely on prior assumptions about them!

Fearmongering over long-term effects of a vaccine while not caring about long-term effects of the virus is a bit confusing.

You justify this by saying children (and adult asymptomatics?) don't actually see much of the virus. I don't think this is true! I think there's plenty of evidence for high viral load in children, they just don't show symptoms.

Even a quick google suggested that viral loads don't significantly differ, so that kinda nukes your rapid dismissal.

The question stands: why so much concern about long term vaccine effects but not long term virus effects?

Murph800 wrote:

He is right. You are an arrogant jerk.

Deniers lost their sense of humor. Another COVID casualty. (With COVID, not from :) )

Thanks for the data!The infected children were shown to have a significantly higher level of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in ICUs for COVID-19 treatment, according to Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General Hospital for Children (MGHfC). The study, “Pediatric SARS-CoV-2: Clinical Presentation, Infectivity, and Immune Reponses,” was published today in The Journal of Pediatrics. But trust LFH... the vaccine delivers a MASSIVE DOSE of mRNA to the body these children would otherwise NEVER see!

There is no evidence for what you are saying either. Is your basis that you are better so your speculation makes more sense? It does not, there is no evidence that a minor covid infection is creating long term health problems in children or behaving any different than a non-infection of any other normal virus. There are also many credible people out there that have raised this very same auto-immune disease concern. Your response is to make up a problem that is even more absurd, claim you know better, and start mocking people. You must be very early in your science career as this arrogance is pretty classic. I hope that AI disease does not become a problem, but there are concerns, and there is no real reason children would need to get the vaccine anyway to warrant cancelling patience. For older adults the need is urgent and the benefits certainly outweigh the risks, but this is not the case with children. Is still don't understand your urgency with the children and mRNA vaccines. It does not make sense and it is also the reason they are not even approved for children yet.

It is funny how this paper focuses on localized tissue rather than throughout the body. I see you are choosing to get even more snarky in hopes to win some sort of contest. Meanwhile the world governments have not approved these vaccines for children because of both short and long term concerns that require time and patience to better understand. You are the only one that thinks this is unreasonable.

Blah blah blah - more baseless theories, goalpost moving etc. so its localization that matters now? Prove it! My evidence: 1) COVID causes severe disease in adults and even more so the eldery 2) COVID is known to give rise a higher frequency of long term/chronic effects in adults than the mRNA vaccines 3) children have viral load similar to adults even when no symptomatic 4) the vaccine (1 year of trials) or other mRNA vaccines (8 years of trials) have no evidence of long term auto immune issues 5) the mRNA vaccines deliver an extremely similar mRNA as the made my the virus. Your evidence: 1) A theory about how dosing and localization mean the vaccine would be worse than the virus 2) nothing.

Conservative Christian wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Again, you are just sorting to being an arrogant jerk to try to justify your own weak arguments. There is no difference, and that was the point. Why would young people risk potential for life long health issues to protect themselves from a threat they are not threaten by? Particularly when those that are threatened are now protected? It make zero sense to push the vaccine on the youth population.

Because it protects others you stupid moron

How? The tundra me are vaccinated. Are you saying the vaccines don't work. Asymptomatic spread has also been shown to be insignificant; Bro2600 even posted data on this. So who are we protecting? Livestock? Family dogs? You say I am wrong, but why have no health authorities world wide rushed to get these vaccines into kids? What is your basis for the need? Making money? Lab funding? What?

Lead Foil Hat IV wrote:

Conservative Christian wrote:

Because it protects others you stupid moron

How? The tundra me are vaccinated. Are you saying the vaccines don't work. Asymptomatic spread has also been shown to be insignificant; Bro2600 even posted data on this. So who are we protecting? Livestock? Family dogs? You say I am wrong, but why have no health authorities world wide rushed to get these vaccines into kids? What is your basis for the need? Making money? Lab funding? What?

not "tundra me" ... vulnerable.....auto correct

2600 bro wrote:

I will take the absence of your usual denial as a concession that - through some miracle of self-awareness - I am correct.

I have spent too long doing 9th grade statistics for you to admit the same about myself!

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Do you realize you just described yourself above?

[/quote

The main problem may be that your are acting intelligent but are only capable of these 9th grade stats you claim to be using but do not even seem capable of using.

You keep declaring facts and erasing other's arguments.

1.) The elderly are old, have weakened immune systems and are less likely than youth to have overblown immune response progressing over many years to auto immune disease.

2. Long term chronic effects this far is speculation and only suspected in those with severe infection. Are you saying assumptions are now data.. I guess you do do that a lot. Also, covid has been around 1 year... how do you get long term data on that....yes, some may be slow to recover from severe infection but that pretty normal for severe infections.

4. There are no complete long term studies of mRNA vaccines in healthy people. The paper you even posted says this .. all except a few on HIV infected people are either in progress or not even started. 1 year is not long enough to have data on AI disease.

3. Viral loads in the nose do not translate to extensive spread throughout the body if no illness is present. Hence localized in the nose.

5.) Sure, but throughout the body....there is no evidence this occurs with minor or asymptomatic infection.

So, really we are just throwing out opinions as there is no evidence either way. The problem is that there is no reason to vaccinate kids for things they are not affected by. Vaccines for kids are great, but should be used sparingly and diseases they are actually susceptible to.

No data again yawn. You're boring now. Just going to respond a few things "There are no complete long term studies of mRNA vaccines in healthy people. The paper you even posted says this .. all except a few on HIV infected people are either in progress or not even started. 1 year is not long enough to have data on AI disease."https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1332077763809996801 Plenty of trials to examine. Like bro... the first one i looked up: "RNActive® Rabies Vaccine (CV7201) in Healthy Adults." Completed in 2018. You need to provide evidence behind your claims: "Long term chronic effects this far is speculation and only suspected in those with severe infection."https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01283-z Most data is on those have been hospitalized and released, so rather severe cases. But there are plenty of cases where people get very sick (bed ridden for days) but never end up hospitalized. Everything exists on a gradient. We know COVID infections be very dangerous. We know the vaccines are much much less dangerous in all measured outcomes so far. I think you just suck at risk analysis. "Viral loads in the nose do not translate to extensive spread throughout the body if no illness is present." Proof? We are not making opposing claims. I show you that children have high viral load. You claim it doesn't count because localization - you have to defend that. "Sure, but throughout the body....there is no evidence this occurs with minor or asymptomatic infection."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318960/ Seems like - as I said - it's a complex process whether LNPs get into the blood in appreciable quantity from an IM injection. The cationic ones seem to be quite specific for immune cells in the draining lymph nodes. It is now on you to show some evidence that vaccine is going to be risky than the virus. Nothing you have to said confirms it.

2600 bro wrote:

Blah blah blah - more baseless theories, goalpost moving etc.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent." Anthony Fauci, December 2020

DanM wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Blah blah blah - more baseless theories, goalpost moving etc.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent." Anthony Fauci, December 2020

Your interjections have been getting more and more boomer-y.

Non-sequiturs about Fauci now. The descent continues.

I guess immunology is too over your head.

PS did you know most people live for more than 1 year? Therefore, most people did not die in 2020? Checkmate, COVID lol

Again, you are extrapolating on your "evidence". You always do this. Post something related that does not prove anything and your evidence is then your assumption. 2 small phase i trials for rabies vaccines completed now 2 years out? Where is the screening on these patients 5 to 10 to 15 years out? Where are the phase 2 trials? Why are they not conducting them? Everything else not even started. And you want to inject the kids, with zero info on testing in children for this delivery method. Your are just a shill fighting to save your lab funding. It is obvious.

Also, how the hell does a study on post-acute infection symptoms indicate their are long term effects of covid after mild to asymptomatic infections (like we see in kids) when (1) we are not even a year out and (2) kids are not experiencing acute symptoms. Again, you make some pretty wild assumptions to shoot people down.

It sure seems like 2600 has provided A LOT more evidence for their side of the issue than LFH.

Of course a study rarely answers the EXACT question at hand, but there are still pertinent conclusions to be drawn.

It seems that:

1) mRNA vaccines have been in humans for much more than a year

2) viral load in children seems to be comparable to adults

Both of these are counterevidence to the claims LFH is making. LFH has provided no evidence to support their side.

I see no evidence to suggest that a vaccine carrying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA would be more of a risk than the virus carrying the same mRNA (and plenty of reasons to believe it's much less of a risk!). Please provide evidence.