331–340 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unchecked spread of viruses leads to less dangerous mutations because the more dangerous ones burn through victims too quickly for it to spread very far.
That’s not a great strategy from the perspective of the victims that get burned through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Specifically, what ‘shattered’ that trust? Doubling down on failed lockdown policy long after it was known to be ineffective and hurt more people than it helped. Profiteering off of the pandemic crisis. Rampant censorship of people who turned out be correct and were trying to warn us. If they knew that there was something wrong with the vaccine, I expect them to lie about it, and censor and coerce whistle blowers i…
If you’re in the US, you never experienced a ‘lockdown’ policy. And nobody has been harmed on the order of the victims of toxic waste dumping. You seem to be assuming that the vaccination programs that have been given to millions of people globally have had some kind of devastating consequences: mass disabilities, cancers and reproductive harms… But, they haven’t, have they?
Not just were people's lives ruined by sloppy and corrupt government pandemic policies, but communities were shattered. The rich got way richer, and working class people were thrown into poverty. And it was so avoidable. Our decision makers at different layers were either corrupt and using the pandemic a cover to profiteer and consolidate power, or they were just incompetent and didn't enact effective policy.
They should be held accountable. They should have to face some kind of justice. Again, look to how corporations that were found to be engaging in illegal pollution were dealt with as a good starting point. Assets should be seized, arrests made. Ideally trusts can be set up to try to repair the damage done to people and communities. People that concealed information about the pandemic should be arrested and tried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just wanna go out in public and not get sick. It’s happened too many times now.
If the vaccine isn't stopping you from getting sick now, why would it stop you from getting sick if more people took it? Does not compute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but it doesn't prevent infection or transmission for more than a couple of months. > If vaccinating under fives reduces the risk to preschool carers and enables us to maintain higher preschool capacity I agree, but this is also not known. Any broader public health benefits are theoretical at this point. They don't seem to have been measured or even modelled.
Vaccination (and masking and distancing) are the only things we really can try to reduce transmission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't the FDA release like 60k pages of those documents a couple months ago? I know Pfizer didn't want that, but people are forgetting before COVID mRNA medicine was a holy grail. So much so a lot of groups didn't pursue it since they saw it as a pipe dream. COVID's greatest gift was causing massive influxes of research dollars into them and most likely fast tracking these new drugs 15 years. mRna will literally be…
> We've had roughly (last time I checked several months ago) a couple of dozen verified deaths relating to the vaccine "Verified" > That's not really reported because anyone who expects every single human on the planet to have zero negative reaction to a drug Exactly, so why take the risk if you're not in a vulnerable group to Covid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it basically doesn't work for children. It's nothing to do with the speed of the trial, the vaccine just doesn't work in children. Even the approved one that exists today barely does anything. There were a ton of attempts before that that simply straight out didn't work.
What does this have to do with anything? The CDC said we need to take the vaccine. That's all you need to know. If you need to take it then obviously kids need to take it too.
But seeing your further reply, you are serious? I'm really having a hard time believing that. You can't possibly be serious, can you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. Moderna remains banned in the Nordics for boys/men under 30. NHS does NOT give AZ boosters, only mRNA. NHS will not give AZ for those under 40, only mRNA. [1] https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w... [2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavir...
Neither of those links back up your claims. The pause on administering Moderna was originally set to expire December last year - I can't find any suggestion it was extended after that (wikipedia claims it's still restricted in Finland, but the source is an article from December). At any rate the risk was identified as extremely rare, and I'm yet to see any indication it has caused deaths in anyone under 30 in the man…
Directly from the Finnish and British governments.
First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer.
The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too.
Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of competent authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You are seriously calling any criticism of a vaccine "antivaxxer"? In your mind there's no such thing as a vaccine that fails? Are you for real? The COVID vaccine does kids doesn't work. Period. And saying that doesn't make someone "anti-science". And I truly can not even begin to wrap my mind around the idea that you would take someone's kids away because they dare question if a vaccine works! What kind of bizarre r…
Like the NIH Office of Vaccine Research.
They declined to recommend universal vaccination for under 15. Politicians disregarded the advice.
Pollard literally invented the AstraZeneca vaccine, has to recuse for all these meetings, but on this forum - he’s an antivaxxer loooooool
He literally invented half of the vaccines you took as a child lmao
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of those links back up your claims. The pause on administering Moderna was originally set to expire December last year - I can't find any suggestion it was extended after that (wikipedia claims it's still restricted in Finland, but the source is an article from December). At any rate the risk was identified as extremely rare, and I'm yet to see any indication it has caused deaths in anyone under 30 in the man…
Why are you reading Wikipedia instead of the official government data that I linked? Directly from the Finnish and British governments. First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer. The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too. Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of com…
PS. I still don't see anything on the NHS site indicating there's any concern that AZ is harmful to those under 40.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you reading Wikipedia instead of the official government data that I linked? Directly from the Finnish and British governments. First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer. The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too. Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of com…
Ok so one country has chosen, for whatever reason, not to administer Moderna to men under 30, presumably on the basis that they feel other alternatives are safer (with an explicit note that the guideline is a temporary precautionary measure). That's hardly proof that vaccines are harmful. All medical treatment carries risk. But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that. PS. I still don't see anything on the NHS s…
FALSE. 20+ countries.
You apparently simply refuse to follow the science from credible authorities.
>But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that.
FALSE. Again, why are you refusing to follow the science?
UK's JCVI which is the official scientific body advising the UK govt, and staffed by internationally renowned immunologists and infectious disease specialists, recommended against universal vaccination to 12-15 year olds.
It was specifically due to the risk-benefit consideration, because the benefit is marginal and risks of infection in that age category are very low. [1]
This is the list of the prominent scientists who made those calls.
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)
on the NHS website I linked: "if you're pregnant or under 40 you'll usually be offered appointments for the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines"
Notice how AZ is NOT offered first to those under 40. Did you expect something like: "WARNING. AZ WILL KILL YOU"?
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc...