21–30 of 700 posts
The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals. Exxon has an interest in minimizing (disregarding) the harmful effects of their products and same goes for Pfizer & friends who's got every govt funneling money to them seemingly without limit.
They rank higher than Tesla on ESG ratings.
Yes, Exxon.
The same people who wouldn't be charitable with, say, Exxon, are bending over backwards to defend global pharmaceuticals. Exxon has an interest in minimizing (disregarding) the harmful effects of their products and same goes for Pfizer & friends who's got every govt funneling money to them seemingly without limit.
Remember Exxon has duped those same people into thinking they are a “good” company They rank higher than Tesla on ESG ratings. Yes, Exxon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ there is no increase in Myocarditis cases among unvaccinated people who have contracted Covid-19. This study tracked 196,992 people which is a huge number, so the data here is quite good and clear. Contracting Covid-19 does not put you at increased risk for Myocarditis, the same cannot be said when evaluating a population that simply received the vacci…
Now, to balance between you and the OP: Great, Covid looks like it won't give me myocarditis. It can still kill me, though. So now we have to balance a "may give me myocarditis" vaccine against a "may kill me, but won't give me myocarditis" virus. You can't make the trade-off solely on myocarditis.
... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of other long-term health issues. If myocarditis isn't one of them, it doesn't really change the risk ratio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, to balance between you and the OP: Great, Covid looks like it won't give me myocarditis. It can still kill me, though. So now we have to balance a "may give me myocarditis" vaccine against a "may kill me, but won't give me myocarditis" virus. You can't make the trade-off solely on myocarditis.
> Great, Covid looks like it won't give me myocarditis. It can still kill me, ... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of other long-term health issues. If myocarditis isn't one of them, it doesn't really change the risk ratio.
One of my kids, 15 at the time, was one of the reported cases of myocarditis. At the time of his hospitalization he was one out of 700 cases. He was in the hospital for two weeks. While under observation after his release, we have not seen indications of lasting damage. No way to know what the future holds. So far, so good. We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my next booster today. The one thing…
One of my kids, 15 at the time, was one of the reported cases of myocarditis. At the time of his hospitalization he was one out of 700 cases. He was in the hospital for two weeks. While under observation after his release, we have not seen indications of lasting damage. No way to know what the future holds. So far, so good. We are still not anti-vax at all. In fact, I might go for my next booster today. The one thing…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Great, Covid looks like it won't give me myocarditis. It can still kill me, ... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of other long-term health issues. If myocarditis isn't one of them, it doesn't really change the risk ratio.
Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though? "... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of other long-term health issues"
Not at close to the same rate, no.
"can" would be a technically true but entirely misleading word there, as the topic of conversation is the risk ratio. "1 in 10 chance" things can happen. "1 in a million chance" things can happen, also.
But these two "can" usages are not the same.
You should know this. You should not be playing word games. Do you think, falsely, that COVID vaccination it totally useless? If not, why imply it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though? "... COVID can still kill me, or give me one of a number of other long-term health issues"
> Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though? Not at close to the same rate, no. "can" would be a technically true but entirely misleading word there, as the topic of conversation is the risk ratio. "1 in 10 chance" things can happen. "1 in a million chance" things can happen, also. But these two "can" usages are not the same. You should know this. You should not be playing word games. Do you think, falsel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't that still apply to someone vaccinated though? Not at close to the same rate, no. "can" would be a technically true but entirely misleading word there, as the topic of conversation is the risk ratio. "1 in 10 chance" things can happen. "1 in a million chance" things can happen, also. But these two "can" usages are not the same. You should know this. You should not be playing word games. Do you think, falsel…
So, what's the risk ratio? I haven't said that it's totally useless, you simply excluded that possibility as a given. Most countries around the world have stopped recommending any further boosters to those under 50/65 years of age.
What makes you say that? It doesn't sound accurate at all, given that Autumn booster programs are underway in USA, UK, EU - and those are the only ones that I have checked. And what are you attempting to imply?