Moderna Vaccine

[Atlas1]

Well….according to the data in front of me, 204,000,000 Americans are vaccinated. If we assume that the vaccines are approximately 50% effective, I’d expect to see 102,000,000 infections in the vaccinated population in the near future (Given that nearly 600,000 infections were recorded yesterday).
Let me know when the numbers work for the story you’re trying to tell.

Also, it’s not just the CDC. It’s every peak body in every developed nation because they all reciew the data from the studies that have been conducted across this pandemic.

i cannot guarantee that because i do not control who is being tested and when. but i feel reasonably safe based on the rising numbers of vaxxed individuals testing positive that given enough time, all of those vaxxed if tested will be positive. you can take every booster that comes out and you will not be able to outrun this virus when it comes to exposure.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

i'm sorry but too many vaxxed people are testing positive at the moment to believe those numbers. you're welcome to take those numbers at face value but i will not. here in the US we were told a week ago in response to the dramatic increase in the number of vaxxed/positive cases that it was because of omicron....something like 75% of cases were that variant. fast forward to this week and that number has been revised to less than 30%. i'm supposed to believe that most of these positive cases are still due to omicron getting by the vaccine?
this leads to another point i made earlier. if the vaccines are always 1 variant behind, the sales pitch for them is not nearly as strong.
you acknowledge the vaccines are less effective against omicron, which is why there will be booster for omicron correct? by the time those are here we will have yet another variant if history has taught us anything. where does it end?
btw, i was just reading some news out of Antarctica you might have seen. despite as serious of a protocol as one could conceive, two thirds of the researchers there are now positive for the virus. the variant is not yet known but it is assumed to be omicron. all of the researchers are vaxxed. ignore the fact surrounding doing everything possible to keep the virus out for a minute and tell me where on the effectiveness scale you would place the shots they took? you mentioned less effective but not completely ineffective. is 1/3 a good percentage? i know as a batting average its tremendous but in this scenario of preventing infection how would you grade it? i might use slightly stronger language than "not completely ineffective" myself

I’ll ask again. Please cite the study/studies that show the vaccine to be incapable of preventing infection.
Even the famous Israel study that’s often cited by those opposed to vaccinations, CLEARLY shows that precious infection reduces the risk of reinfection by x amount when compared to vaccination. You can’t multiply zero.

I’m as interested in you opinion as you are in mine.
Ergo, present the study that supports the position you’re trying to present and I’ll gladly look at it.

 

[Atlas1]

In other words, it is not that no reliable source has stated covid prevents disease, it is that you don't agree with it. Got it.

You are playing with words. Soon as you are wrong, you pivot. Be upfront and say you don't agree with the CDC instead of saying no one in authority has said "x".

higher and higher numbers of vaxxed are testing positive for the virus. my question earlier stands......at what number do we change and accept that the virus is not containing the spread?

Until I see you start posting some proof on your outlandish/false claims, that is all you get.

claims are not outlandish/false because you don't like them.

It might always an irrelevant number unless it is your child. People want to put their child in the best situation for success. For some that might be the shot, for others it might be no shot.

sure. how do you feel about any children that have had an adverse reaction to the vaccine? how will you feel about those children if later down the road they develop some issue related to the vaccine? we agree that for some, they should get the shot and for others, no. i imagine we differ wildly on the numbers of children that should get the shot but thats ok. again my introduction to the thread was centered on MANDATING THESE SHOTS FOR CHILDREN. that i am not ok with, when considering that they are at an almost nonexistent risk to the virus.

Kids may have to take the shot to enroll in school so it won't matter. I agree, we don't know the long-term potential issues. Same flip of the coin we don't know the potential of the next variant either... it could skip adults and focus on kids (unlikely... but you talk in hypotheticals). In other words, no one can predict the future. Who knew?

no we don't know but we can make educated guesses. odds are that the next variant will be even more mild and probably more transmissible. should we force children to get boosters for that one too? being that this virus poses a similar threat level to children as the flu, possibly even less, where are your calls and concern for the flu shot to enroll in school?

“What we’re seeing in our I.C.U. makes it crystal clear that vaccination is the single most important thing you can do to protect your kid from getting sick with this virus,” said Dr. James Schneider, the chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen’s Children’s Medical Center in New York, which serves nearly two dozen hospitals in the Northwell Health system.

In recent days, Dr. Schneider said, five to eight children with Covid were in the intensive care unit, compared with none or one in November.

you'll dismiss my response to this as outlandish or something else but thats ok. i do not know anything of dr. schneider but this quote means nothing to me. i have seen far too many quotes in the last 2 years of random hospital employees that made extremely dubious claims. while it may impress the average reader of the times, i'll remain skeptical of the source. i happen to be best friends with a dr that practices family medicine in southern california as well as having a sister that is an er nurse in northern california. both of their locations are in extremely dense population centers. i say this to prevent any confusion that they work in some backwoods village of 2 dozen people. much of these stories that the news runs do not correspond to what they see on a regular basis. when you watch the interview yesterday? i think it was of fauci explaining how kids in the hospital are testing positive for covid, despite being there for unrelated reasons, how can you not take pause at anecdotal stories like the one mentioned in the times? notice the good dr doesn't say the children in the icu are there because of covid, rather they are there with covid. these words matter as they are routinely used to drum up emotions where there shouldn't be any. for all we know a school bus crashed and thats why those kids are there compared to last month. while sad, is it really a central point that they tested positive if they are there because of a broken leg?

 

[jtmat]

this is only half true. the percentage of vaxxed testing positive as of today in denmark is higher than unvaxxed. this trend is being seen elsewhere.

Catching covid and going to the ICU is much different than catching covid and being at home. We are pushing some healthcare systems to the brink across the USA. With the vaccine you are more than likely to be at home. Period.

i have not once doubted that the vaccine can reduce severe cases of covid. i have argued that the vax itself should not be mandated on anyone, certainly not those that the virus poses statistically no risk to. ultimately you, i, and everyone else has the freedom to decide if they want to get it. for some the threat of the virus is worse than any threat the vax would pose. this is not true for everyone however. and accepting this while making the best decision for one's own health does not make someone less compassionate about society.

I don't think anyone minds that YOU made the decision to not get the vaccine. The issue is your pushing of false, misleading, and incorrect information to justify your decision. Then not backing down once you are shown the information is not correct. That is the real issue in these types of threads.

If you said "screw the CDC, I'm not getting it. I don't care if the vaccines can keep me out ICU, I don't think I'd go there anyway since I'm a 6 ft 1 inch, 170 lb brick of a man." Okay, that is fine.

Funny enough I personal know a guy about your size who is in the Army and he got it. Almost killed him. He would have left behind three kids and a wife. I know, that means nothing to you...

I personally think it is a good idea to get the shot when YOU are comfortable. Long as you have all the correct information to make the decision. I don't think anyone is being forced to make the decision... although they might be restricted on where they work or go to school but those are choices we all have to make.

 

[Atlas1]

I’ll ask again. Please cite the study/studies that show the vaccine to be incapable of preventing infection.
Even the famous Israel study that’s often cited by those opposed to vaccinations, CLEARLY shows that precious infection reduces the risk of reinfection by x amount when compared to vaccination. You can’t multiply zero.

I’m as interested in you opinion as you are in mine.
Ergo, present the study that supports the position you’re trying to present and I’ll gladly look at it.

let me clarify if you don't mind. i do not mean to suggest that the vaccine is 100% incapable of preventing infection. i mean to say that it is not effective in doing so.
also, i am not opposed to vaccinations. i am opposed to ME getting THIS vaccination. and i will not have it forced upon MY children.
the "study" i'm using to determine if the vaccine prevents infection is the testing results of those that are vaxxed, and testing positive. when a region has a high rate of vaccination and is breaking records for cases, my attention is captured. further when it is reported that the percentage of vax/pos cases is higher than those unvaxxed, i think its telling of the effectivity of the vax in preventing infection.

 

[jtmat]

higher and higher numbers of vaxxed are testing positive for the virus. my question earlier stands......at what number do we change and accept that the virus is not containing the spread?

claims are not outlandish/false because you don't like them.

Your claims are not factual. Period. You write a lot but don't backup anything. Soon as cornered, you pivot. Maybe this sort of argument style works where you are from, but not here.

sure. how do you feel about any children that have had an adverse reaction to the vaccine? how will you feel about those children if later down the road they develop some issue related to the vaccine? we agree that for some, they should get the shot and for others, no. i imagine we differ wildly on the numbers of children that should get the shot but thats ok. again my introduction to the thread was centered on MANDATING THESE SHOTS FOR CHILDREN. that i am not ok with, when considering that they are at an almost nonexistent risk to the virus.

Which kids had an adverse reaction to the vaccine? For all we know they will get it and thrive. Do you know something different since you brought it up?

no we don't know but we can make educated guesses. odds are that the next variant will be even more mild and probably more transmissible. should we force children to get boosters for that one too? being that this virus poses a similar threat level to children as the flu, possibly even less, where are your calls and concern for the flu shot to enroll in school?

I don't have any calls for mandated vaccine for kids in school or anywhere else. I simply mentioned it might happen, as it is a standard practice. And Covid is not the flu... that is wacky.

I think it is up to us as a society to make that decision. Ultimately the schools will make the decision or governments (whether you like it or not.. just saying what might happen).

Not just the kids though... they are not in a vacuum. Adults drive them to school, cook their food, teach them, etc. There is a wider focus. Those folks will have a say.

I don't take a stance there... it will play itself out across the US.

you'll dismiss my response to this as outlandish or something else but thats ok. i do not know anything of dr. schneider but this quote means nothing to me. i have seen far too many quotes in the last 2 years of random hospital employees that made extremely dubious claims. while it may impress the average reader of the times, i'll remain skeptical of the source. i happen to be best friends with a dr that practices family medicine in southern california as well as having a sister that is an er nurse in northern california. both of their locations are in extremely dense population centers. i say this to prevent any confusion that they work in some backwoods village of 2 dozen people. much of these stories that the news runs do not correspond to what they see on a regular basis. when you watch the interview yesterday? i think it was of fauci explaining how kids in the hospital are testing positive for covid, despite being there for unrelated reasons, how can you not take pause at anecdotal stories like the one mentioned in the times? notice the good dr doesn't say the children in the icu are there because of covid, rather they are there with covid. these words matter as they are routinely used to drum up emotions where there shouldn't be any. for all we know a school bus crashed and thats why those kids are there compared to last month. while sad, is it really a central point that they tested positive if they are there because of a broken leg?

Pivot. In other words you don't have an argument. We should believe your thoughts and words but not one of a Dr. who has devoted his life to children. I'm sure he has something up his sleeve! Ha ha ha.

 

[Burkey]

the CDC has to change the definition to their agenda. Typical CDC. They’ve changed their stance so many times i can’t see how anyone would trust them.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

I asked for a study, not an opinion piece.

 

[Atlas1]

Catching covid and going to the ICU is much different than catching covid and being at home. We are pushing some healthcare systems to the brink across the USA. With the vaccine you are more than likely to be at home. Period.

my local paper ran a story a couple weeks ago about our hospital being pushed to the brink during covid times. reading beyond the first paragraph would enlighten the reader to the reality that it had almost nothing to do with covid. during the height of the initial surge last year when nyc was knocking on deaths door apparently, temporary hospital units were set up and even a specialized ship was brought in to help. none of that was ever needed. not sure if you saw my previous post but i happen to know a couple people that i trust that work in this field, in major metro areas. i wonder why they have never mentioned their facilities being pushed to the brink? there is also the issue of forcing nurses off the job. would we do this during a critical emergency when we need all the help we can get? i doubt it.

I don't think anyone minds that YOU made the decision to not get the vaccine. The issue is your pushing of false, misleading, and incorrect information to justify your decision. Then not backing down once you are shown the information is not correct. That is the real issue in these types of threads.

i beg to differ, it seems that many of you do mind. because on a number of occasions i have seen the accusation thrown out that not getting the vax is a position of not caring about others, even society as a whole. thats a pretty strong statement to make if what you are saying is true.

Funny enough I personal know a guy about your size who is in the Army and he got it. Almost killed him. He would have left behind three kids and a wife. I know, that means nothing to you...

i'm sincerely glad your friend made it through ok. but i don't know anything about him other than he is in the military so i can't comment on his health/risk factors. there will always be outliers sadly. we can find a specific situation where someone we never expected to fall to the virus, does. should policy or decisions be made off that? not in my opinion.

I personally think it is a good idea to get the shot when YOU are comfortable. Long as you have all the correct information to make the decision. I don't think anyone is being forced to make the decision... although they might be restricted on where they work or go to school but those are choices we all have to make.

i agree. i can assure you that i did not learn about covid early in 2020 and decide if there is ever a vaccine i'm not taking it! i've tried to keep an open mind about it even with all of the hypocrisy and political "noise" regarding the subject. i have yet to determine that the shot is right for me.
to your last point, this is an unfair way to describe the scenario that is being laid out. please don't say i'm not forcing you to get the shot, but if you dont you can't eat, work, or live. this is one of the reasons there is so much pushback against it all. i said this earlier but it may have been missed. you are welcome to create a society where a large number of people are essentially considered outcasts from not wanting to take this shot. i really don't think you are going to like how that plays out though. none of us will. i'd like to avoid that version of reality and stick to offering every possible treatment there is, doing our best to safeguard our own health, and move forward.

 

[Mitch03]

I’ll ask again. Please cite the study/studies that show the vaccine to be incapable of preventing infection.
Even the famous Israel study that’s often cited by those opposed to vaccinations, CLEARLY shows that precious infection reduces the risk of reinfection by x amount when compared to vaccination. You can’t multiply zero.

I’m as interested in you opinion as you are in mine.
Ergo, present the study that supports the position you’re trying to present and I’ll gladly look at it.

lets change it up a little and replace prevent. Prevent is a word that doesn’t necessarily mean completely stop. It’s a lot like hinder. Let replace it with immunity. The cdc had to replace their wording because immunity means something totally different And doesn’t fit the vaccine. So where is your study that shows that?

 

[Burkey]

let me clarify if you don't mind. i do not mean to suggest that the vaccine is 100% incapable of preventing infection. i mean to say that it is not effective in doing so.
also, i am not opposed to vaccinations. i am opposed to ME getting THIS vaccination. and i will not have it forced upon MY children.
the "study" i'm using to determine if the vaccine prevents infection is the testing results of those that are vaxxed, and testing positive. when a region has a high rate of vaccination and is breaking records for cases, my attention is captured. further when it is reported that the percentage of vax/pos cases is higher than those unvaxxed, i think its telling of the effectivity of the vax in preventing infection.

Ok, thats better.
So here’s the big question.
You see the (supposedly) “high” number of cases in vaccinated people as evidence of the vaccines being ineffective.

What experiment did you conduct to determine what the case numbers would look like if nobody was vaccinated?

Can we agree that if 100% of the people were vaxxed, 100% of cases would be in that population?

 

[Tony Alonso]

Closed because of numerous reports of personal attacks.

Sponsored