41–50 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me I'm waiting $N years till I consider getting a covid shot. According to the oxford calculator[0] my risk of hospitalization is microscopic so I take that chance over trying out new under-tested vaxines. [0] https://qcovid.org/
So were the chances of two MMA fighters. And yet Covid ended the career of them both. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My fiance and I are holding out for same reasons.
Your fiancé and yourself are selfish, then. Your risk pales to the cost of spreading the disease to those more vulnerable.
In any case, your arguments, if they can be called that, are very doubtful, in light of emerging evidence about the risks of the vaccine (see OP), and the diminishing infection rates in many countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get COVID, statistically you’ll pass it on to a few people. Let’s hope you live amongst less selfish people so your own selfish behavior doesn’t affect other.
Source please? Just by saying "statistically" does not make it true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My fiance and I are holding out for same reasons.
Your fiancé and yourself are selfish, then. Your risk pales to the cost of spreading the disease to those more vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see any logical reasoning here. This research suggests an unspecific alteration to your immune system. It affects everyone who gets vaccinated, not just researchers. If you are young and healthy, there is a high chance that getting infected with COVID is harmless. Your body will deal with it in the natural way. Furthermore, the risk of getting infected at all is not 100%. I could make the same argument here…
If you get COVID, statistically you’ll pass it on to a few people. Let’s hope you live amongst less selfish people so your own selfish behavior doesn’t affect other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope you continue to social distance for $N years, because vaccination isn't just about you -- its about protecting those who would be at risk. Those "at risk" should already have been vaccinated before the people "not at risk" have been. > It's also about reducing the risk of mutation. The more people it can infect, the greater the risk. It goes both ways: the more people that are vaccinated, the higher the sele…
Actually, vaccinating all kids is normal
Not peer reviewed
Not that that would help anyway. That's becoming increasingly an appeal to authority. There isn't anybody to do the review that isn't a colleague or a competitor, or worse part of an established GroupThink. Peer review has had its day due to specialisation in science. The gold standard now has to be replication from the published method. Therefore: not replicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope you continue to social distance for $N years, because vaccination isn't just about you -- its about protecting those who would be at risk. Those "at risk" should already have been vaccinated before the people "not at risk" have been. > It's also about reducing the risk of mutation. The more people it can infect, the greater the risk. It goes both ways: the more people that are vaccinated, the higher the sele…
Actually, vaccinating all kids is normal
Vaccinating children with 20-100 year old (~1-4 generations of human feedback/testing) vaccines is normal, vaccinating them with 1 year old experimental vaccines is not.
In my opinion, people in high risk groups (elderly/preexisting conditions) should take the vaccine, but low risk healthy individuals should wait as long as possible for more feedback about the potential downsides.
Older at risk age groups have lived a full life and will mostly die in 20 years, so side effects are less of an issue but having otherwise healthy kids potentially live 70-80 years with permanent side effects is criminal.
Waiting N years is the correct approach like somebody else stated. Don't rush to be a guinea pig if you are not high risk.
Is anyone here well versed in this stuff? Can you dumb it down a little bit for me? Is the article saying that the pfizer vaccine reduces the inflammatory response to covid19 and happens to increase the inflammatory response to some random fungus? I must have re-read this article a whole bunch of times and I'm still not convinced I understood anything at all.
The experimental covid vaccines changes your immune system response to non-covid pathogens in ways that aren‘t fully understood, potentially permanently. For example, your immune system will react with a stronger inflammatory response to fungus. They also warn that those effects could change (worsen) the effectiveness of other vaccines, for other diseases.
> Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of COVID-19. Sera and blood samples were collected before the first administration of BNT162b2, three weeks after the first dose (right before the second dose), and two weeks after the second dose. A high percentage (56.3%) of individuals had been vaccinated with BCG in the past 12 months due to the fact that many participants participated in parallel in a BCG-trial. One individual was removed from the dataset after detecting high concentrations of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen at baseline.
Which just gives me lots of questions. By excluding people that already had COVID-19, how can you be sure it's the vaccine that's causing this and not the vaccine causing the same changes as covid19?
As in what if COVID-19 causes the change in innate immune system response and for some reason the vaccine mimicks that. Also they only tested Pfizer and not the "more traditional" vaccines, how can they confidently link it to mRNA technology?
> potentially permanently.
They only tested 2 weeks after the second dose, is that really enough time to be making such statements?
Again, I'm completely uneducated on the topic, but it seems like a lot of assumptions are being made with lots of variables unaccounted for.
I'm honestly pretty torn at this point which vaccine I should be going for. It seems like every week there is another article insinuating that there is some poorly understood, potentially high impact, facet of a given vaccine. Anyone else "holding out?"
I am a fit man, under 30 and my Vitamin D, C and Zinc levels are high. I have zero interest in getting any covid vaccine unless forced to.
Freeloading with vaccination only works if just a small enough minority of people are doing it. In order to minimize your personal risk from both covid and potential side effects of vaccination, you should be advocating for others to get vaccinated but not get the shot yourself.
If you publicly announce that you are not going to get the vaccination, that may encourage others to avoid it as well. That's against your own interests, because then it's more likely that you get covid when the vaccination coverage in the population is lower.