91–100 of 442 posts
Seems like a lose-lose.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been nearly 4 billion shots delivered across the world in the past 8 months. I suspect if they were to cause great harm, we would have known by now.
Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm. See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.
Maybe we'll realize in a couple of years that even asymptomatic covid harms your heart so much that affected people lose years of their lives? The vaccine seems like the safer choice to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only issue is with this line: >> employees could continue working from home through Oct. 18. I agree that they should mandate vaccines for in office. But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office.
"Mandate" means something very different when performed by a private employer than by a government entity. In the former case it means something like "make continued employment conditional upon." Google employees are perfectly free to decide they're no longer satisfied with the conditions of their employment and find new jobs elsewhere instead. Edited to add: In terms of whether Google "should" do so, I assume they'v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too think it's great when an employer with all the power forces employees to submit to medical procedures against their will in order to continue earning a living. My body my choice, right? Wow, I've never gotten a comment flagged in my years of being here, let alone within minutes! Good to see this a fruitful unbiased discussion forum.
Their company, their choice. As an employee, I would very much enjoy the freedom _from_ COVID-19.
Edit: Protected classes is a legal term and is irrelevant to the topic here. If your argument can be used to support a statement or action that you consider incorrect or immoral then it is not a good argument. After all "Their company, their choice." has in fact been used in the past in order to discriminate against minorities.
But feel free to replace "racial minorities" with a non-protected class such as "blonde people".
Edit2: "You can choose to be vaccinated (minus the obvious medical exceptions), you can't choose your minority status."
This is again irrelevant to the topic. I am arguing against the hypocritical "their company, their choice" argument. This new argument is even worse because similarly one can say the disgusting "you can choose to bleach your skin if your company does not like black people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any vaccines in history that have caused something unexpected 10 years from injection?
Are there any human vaccines in history that are based on mRNA?
This is from 2018 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
All WHO approved vaccines? I'm thinking of leaving the country to try to get an inactive virus vaccine. I don't let anyone else run RNA code in my cells. The attack surface is too large.
If you are living in the USA why not get the Johnson and Johnson vaccine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol - there are plenty of things that only cause (attributable) harm after a long time.
You mean like severe cases of COVID? Admission to critical care or death from COVID?
obviously COVID is bad, no one is denying that. no one is denying that the vaccine is good. but to say that the vaccine cannot be bad ever or ever have potentially negative side effects is being misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. this is why people who are concerned about these tradeoffs should consult a medical professional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any human vaccines in history that are based on mRNA?
1) Get the JnJ one then? 2) Do you have any evidence to suggest a risk with the mRNA delivery vehicle? If so, what is that risk and why will it materialize in some unknown amount of time instead of after someone gets the vaccine?
My point is, an appeal to history does not work when you are dealing with something new.
By the way, how long have we had vaccines based on adenovirus vectors?