831–840 of 911 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geographically, yes. By population... not even close to half.
it's a global pandemic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a good question let me answer - some people can't get the vaccine. Right now, it's banned for people with allergies. Babies can't get it. For some people, they can never get it due to their immune system. Their only chance is never coming into contact with a contagious person, so that means as many of us need to get the vaccine as possible to ensure that doesn't happen.
Can anyone clarify what "allergies" mean in this context? I have a (now really mild) allergy to some pollen; as s child it made me miserable for two months (late April to early June) with nose constantly running, puffy eyes. Now I barely sneeze twice a day and only in some specific areas... never got tested so I don't know which plant I am allergic to (and if it is the plant getting extinct or my body getting better…
I totally trust science but not companies and governments that are in a mission to save "The Economy" and their fat-arsed pockets.
I'm not saying that a company shouldn't care about making profits. But let's not forget some pharma companies' scandals from the past. Would you rush to consume some magical piping hot medicine/vaccine someone made? Is it ready yet? Is it tested enough? Is it safe for everyone?
I don't belong to a high risk group so I don't think I need it for now. There are priorities. Also I'm not risking my otherwise good health with a beta vaccine to prevent the low risk of dying from COVID. I totally trust science but not companies and governments that are in a mission to save "The Economy" and their fat-arsed pockets. I'm not saying that a company shouldn't care about making profits. But let's not for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more promising vaccine was developed in January 2020 and requires only -4C https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(20)30027-1 and has had good results in trials from March.
The link in your comment doesn't have anything to do with what you've said.
Also, I'm guessing that JumpCrissCross doesn't know specifically that it is the Pfizer vaccine. It could be the Moderna one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're the kind of guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt and speeds through red lights to protest the government telling you what to do? Or are you smart enough to understand why it's important that we have rules that mandate certain behaviors? (Not that getting vaccinated will actually be mandatory.)
Mandatory seatbelts happened slowly, not in an emergency, after years of debate and clear scientific research. You can't compare that to the current situation with COVID-19. Remember that we've accelerated testing so much that we literally don't even know yet if these vaccines actually provide a mortality benefit: there just isn't enough data yet. You can't even compare this situation to other uses of vaccines. Not t…
And also years of screaming about rights being abused while people died unnecessarily in car crashes. Today, the people who resisted seatbelts are rightfully regarded as fools.
Are you an epidemiologist? How effective is your ability to personally judge the scientific debate here?
I'll take it but only later in the year when it is more widely available. People at high risk should go first, then people who are super social (or stupid + spreading the plague). Especially younger people, they need to get pricked. Do you really think they're going to avoid drinking close physical contact in spring? Me neither.
I predict that public employees will wrangle their way to the front of the line, needs be damned. They are very powerful in CA.
My understanding was always that public employees everywhere in the United States, especially the traditionally blue places, are impervious to corruption.
When has there ever been a record in history where a public employee in CA was found to be corrupt?
If the media are to be believed, these people are humble, simple people, without any nefarious bones in their bodies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone clarify what "allergies" mean in this context? I have a (now really mild) allergy to some pollen; as s child it made me miserable for two months (late April to early June) with nose constantly running, puffy eyes. Now I barely sneeze twice a day and only in some specific areas... never got tested so I don't know which plant I am allergic to (and if it is the plant getting extinct or my body getting better…
No I assume pollen's fine, I would maybe double check literally at the point being administered with personally, but the news was about severe reactions, anaphylactic shock, people that need to worry about what's in what they eat. And it came up 'in production' because they didn't have anyone in the trial with such an allergy; surely they had plenty of hayfever in there, statistically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not telling anyone I had the vaccine when I didn't. They're free to avoid me if they want. Many things we selfishly do endanger others. Ever driven a car? But honestly, in my gut, I don't feel like I'm endangering people. I'm doing the thing that I think will most likely make me healthy, and that will most likely result in best outcomes for others, too. I may have some bias here because the only 2 times I've gott…
> Many things we selfishly do endanger others. Ever driven a car? Yes, and I take various precautions when doing so to reduce the risk to those around me. But, driving a car gets me from point A to B. There's a trade-off. Near as I can tell from the available data from studies on the new vaccines, the risk and consequences of getting COVID outweigh the risks and consequences of getting the vaccine, perhaps by several…
i agree the flu shot is probably coincidence, but at least until/if i get the flu w/o it, i'm going to be guided by my first-hand experience for now. if i get the flu again, i will do more research and reconsider.
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why