161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could have made it mandatory for the military regardless of full approval. This just makes it easier.
That backfired with anthrax. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2003/12/judge-or...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's assuming they're not going to find out yet another excuse. Both vector vaccines and inactivated virus vaccines have faced just as much opposition.
Yeah, people seem to be forgetting the anti-vaxx movement that was already brewing way before COVID.
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
I think you are right. People won't change their minds about it. But the question is, should they be allowed to control what goes inside their bodies? In my opinion, the answer is a huge YES OF COURSE.
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. Or maybe just stick with the fact that it isn't very effective. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...
> Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). Notably, the Delta variant prevalence in Minnesota increased from 0.7% in May to over 70% in July whereas the Alpha variant prevalence decreased from 85% to 13% over the same time period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concern? Why? The virus is under control in countries where the vaccine rollout has been swift. Why do you sound so keen to force something on people that they don't want, regardless of their reasons? Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? If people can lose their jobs over it then clearly they don't have that right - that's a form of coercion/blackmail. I think the focus on a small minority of peo…
It's socially irresponsible and the impact to others is possible death. I wouldn't have a problem if these people weren't spreading death to others, but instead, they choose to force themselves on the rest of us because "freedom". The same people that don't understand vaccines are also likely to think masks don't work, so they take zero precautions when it comes to their safety and others. The focus is just, these fo…
>The same people that don't understand vaccines are also likely to think masks don't work
I don't see how this is relevant. It just seems like a strawman argument to dismiss people who might have legitimate reasons for not having the vaccine or otherwise just want to exercise their right not to have it.
That means that it may be prescribed to individuals <18 in some circumstances, and that it's legal to do so (explicit emergency authorization notwithstanding).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What terminology would you recommend for getting the number of people who died from Covid19 after being fully vaccinated against Covid19? "Breakthrough deaths" not "Net breakthrough deaths" Your post is flagged and unreadable now but I'm pretty sure you were claiming 8 million breakthrough deaths. That's obviously wrong because it's two times larger than the total number of deaths globally among all people. > Since…
> Breakthrough deaths" not "Net breakthrough deaths" That is nonsense. This is the "gross" figure reported by CDC[1]: >> Deaths† 1,587 The footnote is: >> †341 (21%) of 1,587 fatal cases reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19. So the net number of deaths due to Covid19 in people with breakthrough infections is 1,587- 341. "Breakthrough deaths" would use the gross figure, and result in a breakthrough deat…
You're right I must have missed the "/" symbol. But the point remains that your comparison is irrelevant and ignoring very bright signals that the vaccines are effective. The rise in percentages are not as noteworthy as you imply as we're dealing with very small numbers to begin with.
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. Or maybe just stick with the fact that it isn't very effective. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. Or maybe just stick with the fact that it isn't very effective. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...