221–230 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already developed immunity?
„Developed immunity“ is speculation, so this should rather read „What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already had COVID ?“
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Since when has not knowing something been justification for intervention? Given that people have been getting sick from COVID-19 for at least as long as vaccines have been available for testing, shouldn't experts have a reasonable understanding of whether previously infected people are as protec…
I've seen doctors say they can detect antibodies at the very least at the 4 month mark. A yearly shot might be necessary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like 1 in 500k. The CDC reports that as of April 21 there have been a total of 15 confirmed cases of this blood clotting condition among nearly eight million doses administered. You probably won't find an issue that rare if you test 40k people. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-clots-and-t...
The UK figures (where AZ has been the centerpiece of their programme) suggest about 1 in 250k, which is still a really small risk.
I got confused as the same thing was reported in Oxford Astrozenica vaccine recipients. I wasn't sure if they're the same vaccine (they're not). So I read up a bit. The same sort of clots occur in people who have been given heparin (a blood thinner). It's even called "heparin induced" in people using heparin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-vaccination_embolic_and_t... People on either vaccine have been found to h…
it may be not only PF4:
..of 2,688 human proteins. In some of his own covid patients he found antibodies targeting 30 other important signaling agents besides interferon,
Antibodies which: can somehow be created by covid itself , have the potential to last a lifetime.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26915143
I guess that the spike another function could be a trap for the immune system and antibodies - resulting in production of autoantibodies - and that's very wise choice, which parts of that trap/virus are used in vaccines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FDA is phrasing it as 'blood clots' and what they should be calling it is 'death.' How many deaths are associated with each vaccine at this point? Show me the data.
Only a minority of the clots caused death, and as there is treatment for them and we know what to look for, it should be considerably less risky. 'The data' is available for you out there on Google. The calculus the public health officials are making I think is reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because you don’t apply until you have your whole data package. There is no “apply as step 1” it’s “you submit your application when it’s complete”. https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download#page13
My point is the US doesn’t have a “pending decision” on AstraZeneca, the US has the potential (uncertain for many reasons) that they might apply at some time in the future. Of course, AZ also lost its production capacity even if it was going to be approved, since it was dependent on the troubled Emergent facility which has been taken over but J&J and dedicated exclusively tonthe J&J vaccine, and has not located new p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccine when properly produced is incredibly safe - much safer than catching COVID, which is of course the cost of inaction.
I think that's what I just said...
That is, the vaccine name has been slapped on a box that offers no guarantees of containing that content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what I just said...
Those discarded vaccines are assumed to be improperly constructed, in which case they are not an actual instance of the vaccine (rather, something similar but not the same, and that difference is arbitrary and variable). That is, the vaccine name has been slapped on a box that offers no guarantees of containing that content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those discarded vaccines are assumed to be improperly constructed, in which case they are not an actual instance of the vaccine (rather, something similar but not the same, and that difference is arbitrary and variable). That is, the vaccine name has been slapped on a box that offers no guarantees of containing that content.
That sounds like antivaxx fear mongering to me TBH.
You need to be able to trust your medicine has been produced correctly, because there’s no real way to verify it as a consumer (or as a doctor, or a pharmacist, or really anywhere after the fact). As soon as that trust is lost, the whole thing falls apart.
You don’t take risks with medicine, because it’s already doing barely controlled, barely calculated shit to the body — that we only trust to do the job it says on the tin, because of the extensive and controlled tests. If those tests are no longer valid, because the medicine involved has qualities unknown (due to improper construction), anything goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea. Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protecti…
How is your comment relevant to mine? The thrust of my argument is that imposing negative consequences (irrespective of reason) is a form of coercion. There are many things that ought to be coerced, but it is ridiculous to assert in the face of imposed consequences that people aren't being coerced or forced into taking vaccines. People might not want to state it that strongly and the coercion isn't as strong as what…
So under your expansive definition - which IMO is not the right or correct one - sure, people are getting coerced into getting vaccines. And if they aren't coerced, it's coercion against the rest of the population.
That's why your definition isn't useful and isn't used, and "coercion" is generally used for a specific set of acts.