When will the vaccinated start showing health complications?

c7runner7 wrote:

There's been 34 million Americans with Covid and 600k that died. There's been 150 million vaccinated. So for the vaccine to be more dangerous than Covid 3 million (600k x 5) would need to die.

"Oh, but like, 94% of those had comorbidities or were old." Okay, whatever, lets just say their lives don't count... that's still 36k deaths... so you'd need 150k vaccine deaths to be equal.

"Well no, not everyone would get Covid"? I think 1/2 the population (150mil) getting it is reasonable over a period of 5+ years considering more than 50% get the flu in their lifetime. But fine, let's just say from here on out, only 34 more million could contract Covid if there were no vaccines. So that vaccines have to kill more than 36k people to be more dangerous (for healthy non-old people).

"Well, I'm a really healthy person though, and young, so the vaccine is more dangerous". Really? What what's the death rate for vaccines in the 20-29 age group range? Oh, that data doesn't exist, and you're just purely speculating with questionable research and not actual real-world results? Okay, that's fine, but don't act like you have some great argument that's going to save the world from Big Pharma and the evil government.

"Well, all your assumptions are wrong, because Covid numbers were all a lie. People died "with Covid, not from Covid" Okay... sure, and the 'excess death' numbers were fabricated too? And world-wide, doctors, heath-care providers, and government officials all colluded to deceive the general public about Covid? Seriously, how likely is that? Deep down in your gut, you may be slightly cynical and suspect that; I question everything, so I get it. But how can that actually be your accepted position that you publicly state and hold to be 100% true? Maybe, the deaths were a little overstated. We could even say 90% of deaths were overstated and it still wouldn't change the numbers enough to make vaccines more dangerous than Covid.

This isn't a debate anymore. It's just not. As a whole, vaccines are safe are effective. Its undeniable they save more lives than they destroy. For you personally, it may not really matter a whole lot if you get the vaccine or not. For kids, it likely matters even less. But you not getting it isn't a 'health decision based on robust evidence'. You just aren't getting it because you don't feel it matters for you personally and you just don't want too. And maybe those unproven VAERS reports and circulating Facebook stories freak you out, and you also don't want to feel like crap for 24 hrs after your shot. That's fine. Whatever, I don't really care, most people don't care. It's not mandated, no one is holding you down and forcing you to get it, no one is stabbing your child, do whatever you want. Should it be mandated for children? I don't like to mandate anything; so no. But I think it's fine to say "Hey, I can't be 100% sure, but your child is most likely going to be absolutely fine getting the vaccine. They'd also most likely be fine if they don't get the vaccine, but Covid is more likely to provide adverse effects vs the vaccine, although the absolute risk for your 10 year old is really low either way so do whatever you want" But obsessively arguing that the vaccine is somehow more harmful than Covid- and being so adamant about it- is just ridiculous.

JCLv.6.0 wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

No comment on Manaus yet.... telling :)

No vaccines are completely protective, they never will be. Even 75% effectivity (see: Delta variant) makes widespread transmission difficult.

If your threshold is complete protection then NOTHING will ever satisfy you.

Infection driven immunity falls on a wide spectrum. You cannot ensure a strong response, ad it's hard to test for adequate response from prior infection. Allowing mass infections is going to provide orders of magnitudes more replication events, variation, and selection (another fact you refuse to acknowledge) - and carries enormous cost to a population...

Yes it's possible that other viral epitopes are useful for driving immune response but the spike is by far the most antigenic and potent. The most important epitopes for immunity overlap with the important regions for receptor binding... making selection for increased potency but decreased neutralization very difficult.

You are taking all the exceptions and edge cases and making them the focus. There are many more exceptions and edge cases to infection driven immunity.

You do seem to have read some fringe blogs and can spam buzzwords though. One of the better trolls around here.

Manaus never reached herd immunity. Natural immunity produces broad, robust and long term memory B cell immunity to many viral epitopes. The envelope protein, Nucleocapsid protein, RdRP all play a role in dampening innate host cell response, disrupting normal cell processes and spreading infection. The simple spike-bind-ACE2R mode of infection is only one of the many means by which SARSCoV2 infects and spreads throughout the body (neutrophilin1, CD147, Syncytial spread). It is probable that the envelope and membrane proteins also play roles in docking/infection. The data show that vaccines, while reasonable choices to minimize risk for people who are at risk, certainly are not superior and may in fact be inferior to natural immunity. Clinging to your dogmatic but false/unstudied beliefs is just foolish.

JCLv.6.0 wrote:

LOL, you are not up on the literature. CD147 has been claimed as a bona-fide receptor for SARS-CoV-2, but current data seem to support the notion that CD147 acts as an attachment cofactor to facilitate SARS-CoV-2 entry. In fact, monoclonal antibodies to CD147 block SARSCoV2 uptake/cellular entry and are currently under development for the treatment of SARSCoV2. Other molecules that enhance SARS-CoV-2 entry including Neuropilin-1, phosphatidylcholine receptors, heparan sulfate proteoglycans, sialic acid residues, and C-type lectins.

Guess you also aren't well versed on the evidence showing that serious SARSCoV2 results from infection of immature blood cells which express CD147 in addition to ACE2R and TMPRSS2. The vicious cycle of infection of immature blood cells cause the mature red blood cells to die off and not be replaced resulting in hypoxemia and the inability to properly oxygenate tissues leading to organ failure and death. Ventilating people just pokes holes in already inflamed and fluid filled lungs. It does not help with severely depleted hemoglobin and functional red blood cells.

But, hey, you're the expert, right? You've got this all figured out in your midget brain.

JCLv.6.0 wrote:

LOL, you are not up on the literature. CD147 has been claimed as a bona-fide receptor for SARS-CoV-2, but current data seem to support the notion that CD147 acts as an attachment cofactor to facilitate SARS-CoV-2 entry. In fact, monoclonal antibodies to CD147 block SARSCoV2 uptake/cellular entry and are currently under development for the treatment of SARSCoV2. Other molecules that enhance SARS-CoV-2 entry including Neuropilin-1, phosphatidylcholine receptors, heparan sulfate proteoglycans, sialic acid residues, and C-type lectins.

Guess you also aren't well versed on the evidence showing that serious SARSCoV2 results from infection of immature blood cells which express CD147 in addition to ACE2R and TMPRSS2. The vicious cycle of infection of immature blood cells cause the mature red blood cells to die off and not be replaced resulting in hypoxemia and the inability to properly oxygenate tissues leading to organ failure and death. Ventilating people just pokes holes in already inflamed and fluid filled lungs. It does not help with severely depleted hemoglobin and functional red blood cells.

But, hey, you're the expert, right? You've got this all figured out in your midget brain.