*****Dabo, on team vaccinations

[ChicagoTiger85]

Simple question.

If you are vaccinated, WTF do you care if someone is not?

You are good right? Their decision impacts them and other unvaccinated folks right?

You seem to be forgetting about the public health reasons for vaccination. It's not just about personal protection from illness. This is why individualistic arguments against vaccination campaigns don't really make much sense. Or, another way to think about it is that you can either "mind your own business" or you can have public health, but you can't entirely have both. We have pretty good precedent for vaccines as public health tools, though, and we've used them in relatively non-intrusive ways by requiring them for participation in some things, rather than blanket mandates.

Also, since no vaccine is 100% effective, the larger the proportion of unvaccinated people, the more likely it is that there will be breakthrough infections. Plus, everyone has to shoulder the burden of care for unvaccinated people, and everybody has to deal with harsh public health measures if there's an outbreak. It's much easier to just get vaccinated than to try and roll the dice and have to go through emergency measures periodically.

 

[SconnyTiger25]

Is there a link to this report? CDC is reporting that 97% of symptomatic Covid infections are unvaccinated.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/covid-deaths-on-the-rise-again-after-weeks-of-decline-cdc-says.html

The CDC director also recently said that 99.5% of the people who died from Covid were unvaccinated.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemima...e-unvaccinated-data-suggests/?sh=31d8cb5b493d

You are correct in that it should be a personal choice but likely that those who remain unvaxxed will have less opportunities available to them as businesses continue to implement restrictions.

Why aren’t you linking data on the CDC website vs a media outlet?

 

[MBRO]

CA population is 39 million + That's about 1 in 9300 people. So 4195 have a virus that is akin to a cold. Yeah, its virtue signaling.

It’s less about the sheer number and more about the 400% increase in daily positives over a 15 day period.

Guess what that trend looks like in 2-3 months?

 

[dual_tiger]

I'm curious why you think you can trust your limited anecdotal evidence, but not the CDC's recommendations based on evaluation of tons of evidence.

Can you actually show me where with actually data points where natural immunity is =>< actually vaccinated immunity? Thanks.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

It’s less about the sheer number and more about the 400% increase in daily positives over a 15 day period.

Guess what that trend looks like in 2-3 months?

Sheer numbers do matter, though, because they contextualize the scope of the problem.

 

[acwill07]

They have a choice and Dabo can stand up to these bullies and tell them. Back off or no season.

You’ve lost your mind.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Can you actually show me where with actually data points where natural immunity is =>< actually vaccinated immunity? Thanks.

I'm not a researcher in this field, and I'm not going out and looking for specific studies. However, the CDC's recommendation is strong evidence for people who've recovered getting vaccinated, whereas there's nothing suggesting that people shouldn't get vaccinated. There are various studies showing that vaccination enhances immunity for recovered people, and that immunity can be different for vaccinated people from people who've recovered from COVID. We also know that immunity from respiratory viruses typically fades.

 

[acwill07]

You are soooo wrong.

My wife is a teacher. She and her students have no requirement to be vaccinated or wear masks.

I don't believe testing protocols are been released, but there is ZERO reason to test healthily individuals ages 1 to 40. Testing non symptomatic, vaccinated persons is nothing more than virtue signally. It has all the effectiveness of wearing a condom while masturbating.

A whopping 230 cases in SC yesterday. That's 4 per county. Yup those numbers are up, from about 1.5 cases per day per county. Hate to break it to you. COVID has been around for a long time and isn't going away.

Again, you have I have the shots so we're okay right? What do you have to worry about. Only vaccinated Texas legislators get Covid after have the shots.

Worry about you.

I’m not talking about our state I’m talking nationwide. If everyone got vaccinated the testing protocols would disappear.

 

[stigers91]

I'm curious why you think you can trust your limited anecdotal evidence, but not the CDC's recommendations based on evaluation of tons of evidence.

They dont even know how long COVID anti-bodies last so I cast some doubts on studies. Is there a study out there exposing people with shot, people without shot, prior Covid positive, to the COVID virus and showing infection rates, and symptom severity differences between groups ? Has the CDC been incorrect about things before? Does my anti-bodies become super anti-bodies with shots? If I got the shot, was exposed to COVID again and came down with it, does that mean the shot doesn't work because I didnt get it a second time without the shot? Just way to many variables to truly know how effective the shot is versus how effective COVID anti-bodies are in my opinion.

The CDC could be 100% correct. I believe the CDC will always error on the side of caution and push what they believe is the best course of action even if there is no concrete evidence to support.

Im not claiming to be smart. This is where everyone makes the decision best for themselves.

 

[firegiver]

That's what I thought. What did you major in? Basket weaving?

well ya, what about you

 

[dual_tiger]

Because there were clinical trials done showing this. Further testing showed that vaccines made it unlikely that you would spread the virus to others, which is why the CDC removed mask requirements for vaccinated people. I'm not sure why people are just ignoring that.

Also: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

‘Breakthrough' COVID Cases After Vaccines Are Rare and Expected. What You Need to Know

At least two fully vaccinated Olympians on Team USA’s roster have tested positive for COVID-19 and neither of the two female athletes reported feeling any symptoms. Health experts say these breakthrough cases are rare and expected.

www.nbcbayarea.com

Show me the data. The articles you linked doesn’t provide any data points as to what percentage of vaccinated asymptomatic or presenting symptoms vaccinated have transmitted Covid one way or the other. There are claims that it is less likely but by how much 1% 25% 100%. Which is it? Don’t you think that would be important information to know? They don’t even know how much of a factor asymptomatic vaccinated people are in the spread of the virus as they don’t can’t even track it. This is a quote “ The number of breakthrough cases is largely unknown after the CDC shifted to tracking only the breakthrough infections that resulted in hospitalization or death starting on May 1” The bottom line is we know for a fact that the vaccinated get Covid and can transmit Covid. We don’t know how many asymptomatic vaccinated carriers there are much less how much they have spread the virus.

 

[92TigerME]

well ya, what about you

Mechanical Engineering.

 

[92TigerME]

You’ve lost your mind.

Somebody has got to take a stand. Forcing kids to take the vaccine. That's racist.

 

[dual_tiger]

I'm not a researcher in this field, and I'm not going out and looking for specific studies. However, the CDC's recommendation is strong evidence for people who've recovered getting vaccinated, whereas there's nothing suggesting that people shouldn't get vaccinated. There are various studies showing that vaccination enhances immunity for recovered people, and that immunity can be different for vaccinated people from people who've recovered from COVID. We also know that immunity from respiratory viruses typically fades.

You won’t because you can’t. Sure there are studies ongoing. There isn’t any conclusive data points on natural vs vaccinated protection yet. There are also studies ongoing that Covid vaccines fade so I’m not really sure what your point is. Recommendations can and do change all the time at the cdc.

 

[ladedade]

Why aren’t you linking data on the CDC website vs a media outlet?

Three reasons:

1. Referencing it from center-left and center-right news organizations is sufficient IMO
2. Searching for the CDC link is more effort than I want to make
3. Neither is going to convince an anti-vaxxer

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

They dont even know how long COVID anti-bodies last so I cast some doubts on studies. Is there a study out there exposing people with shot, people without shot, prior Covid positive, to the COVID virus and showing infection rates, and symptom severity differences between groups ? Has the CDC been incorrect about things before? Does my anti-bodies become super anti-bodies with shots? If I got the shot, was exposed to COVID again and came down with it, does that mean the shot doesn't work because I didnt get it a second time without the shot? Just way to many variables to truly know how effective the shot is versus how effective COVID anti-bodies are in my opinion.

The CDC could be 100% correct. I believe the CDC will always error on the side of caution and push what they believe is the best course of action even if there is no concrete evidence to support.

Im not claiming to be smart. This is where everyone makes the decision best for themselves.

Your first few questions were addressed by the clinical trials, and are currently playing out as hundreds of millions of people are being vaccinated. The way I look at it is that if the CDC is recommending it, then that's what your doctor is going to tell you anyway unless you have some very specific medical issue (which would probably be covered by CDC recommendations). Since there are very limited downside to vaccination, and on the other hand you've got CDC recommendations, personal protection, public health, and avoiding all of the harsh public health measures, it seems like a no brainer to just go ahead and do it. I do totally get not making it a major priority if you've already had COVID, but given that only like 30 million people have been diagnosed with COVID, it's not just people who've recovered who are refusing the vaccine.

 

[dual_tiger]

Your first few questions were addressed by the clinical trials, and are currently playing out as hundreds of millions of people are being vaccinated. The way I look at it is that if the CDC is recommending it, then that's what your doctor is going to tell you anyway unless you have some very specific medical issue (which would probably be covered by CDC recommendations). Since there are very limited downside to vaccination, and on the other hand you've got CDC recommendations, personal protection, public health, and avoiding all of the harsh public health measures, it seems like a no brainer to just go ahead and do it. I do totally get not making it a major priority if you've already had COVID, but given that only like 30 million people have been diagnosed with COVID, it's not just people who've recovered who are refusing the vaccine.

Where did they answer his questions? Pfizer or Moderna didn’t even test for asymptomatic breakthroughs. Much less even a fraction of what he was asking. 😂
Again if you want to continue spouting off bs at least back it up with concrete data.

 

[stigers91]

Your first few questions were addressed by the clinical trials, and are currently playing out as hundreds of millions of people are being vaccinated. The way I look at it is that if the CDC is recommending it, then that's what your doctor is going to tell you anyway unless you have some very specific medical issue (which would probably be covered by CDC recommendations). Since there are very limited downside to vaccination, and on the other hand you've got CDC recommendations, personal protection, public health, and avoiding all of the harsh public health measures, it seems like a no brainer to just go ahead and do it. I do totally get not making it a major priority if you've already had COVID, but given that only like 30 million people have been diagnosed with COVID, it's not just people who've recovered who are refusing the vaccine.

I did state anyone not previously infected with COVID would most likely be best served by getting the shot. My personal choice is just to wait, since I've had it.

My wife got shot 1, and had COVID the next day. No, I dont believe they were related because I believe our daughter got it first and passed to wife. I do know my wife was by far the sickest. I do believe the unfortunate timing of the shot increased her severity because her body was now dealing with both.

 

[92TigerME]

I did state anyone not previously infected with COVID would most likely be best served by getting the shot. My personal choice is just to wait, since I've had it.

My wife got shot 1, and had COVID the next day. No, I dont believe they were related because I believe our daughter got it first and passed to wife. I do know my wife was by far the sickest. I do believe the unfortunate timing of the shot increased her severity because her body was now dealing with both.

Got the flu shot in 2012, got sick that night. Laid out a few days but took a month to shake the cough. My work college had the same thing happen to him. Anyhow. I was totally oblivious to the anti vax discussion back then and I told my boss, I got the flu from the flu shot and he like to take my head off. He sounded just like ACwill07.

 

[acwill07]

Somebody has got to take a stand. Forcing kids to take the vaccine. That's racist.

Racist?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Where did they answer his questions? Pfizer or Moderna didn’t even test for asymptomatic breakthroughs. Much less even a fraction of what he was asking. 😂
Again if you want to continue spouting off bs at least back it up with concrete data.

That doesn’t appear to be true: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

Moderna Announces Primary Efficacy Analysis in Phase 3 COVE Study for Its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate and Filing Today with U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization | Moderna, Inc.

Primary efficacy analysis of the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273 involving 30,000 participants included 196 cases of COVID-19, of which 30 cases were severe Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was 94.1%; vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 was 100% mRNA-1273 continues to be generally well

investors.modernatx.com

The fact is that you’re simply looking for validation of what you want to think. The CDC’s recommendations are what doctors base their own recommendations on.

 

[dual_tiger]

That doesn’t appear to be true: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

Moderna Announces Primary Efficacy Analysis in Phase 3 COVE Study for Its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate and Filing Today with U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization | Moderna, Inc.

Primary efficacy analysis of the Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273 involving 30,000 participants included 196 cases of COVID-19, of which 30 cases were severe Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was 94.1%; vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 was 100% mRNA-1273 continues to be generally well

investors.modernatx.com

The fact is that you’re simply looking for validation of what you want to think. The CDC’s recommendations are what doctors base their own recommendations on.

Untrue in what way? There is nothing in that link that says they tested for asymptomatic cases. Nor does it answer all of his questions posted. Nice try though.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Untrue in what way? There is nothing in that link that says they tested for asymptomatic cases. Nor does it answer all of his questions posted. Nice try though.

How do you test for asymptomatic cases? You simply test, or you don't test. What they did is that they tested everybody in order to get accurate data for their trial.

 

[dual_tiger]

How do you test for asymptomatic cases? You simply test, or you don't test. What they did is that they tested everybody in order to get accurate data for their trial.

It’s a possibility I missed it but it didn’t read like they tested everyone. It read more like during the trial they only tested for Covid if symptoms were displayed. Feel free to point out my mistake. Didn’t see many of his other questions answered either in comparisons between previous Covid infections.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

It’s a possibility I missed it but it didn’t read like they tested everyone. It read more like during the trial they only tested for Covid if symptoms were displayed. Feel free to point out my mistake. Didn’t see many of his other questions answered either in comparisons between previous Covid infections.

Without combing over their trial design, it wouldn't make much sense for them to only test symptomatic people. Unless you can find something that says that's what they did, I don't know why you'd assume that.

Here's what CDC says about its recommendations: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...you have already,have recovered from COVID-19.

Spoiler

Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again. Studies have shown that vaccination provides a strong boost in protection in people who have recovered from COVID-19. Learn more about why getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

If you or your child has a history of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults or children (MIS-A or MIS-C), consider delaying vaccination until you or your child have recovered from being sick and for 90 days after the date of diagnosis of MIS-A or MIS-C. Learn more about the clinical considerations people with a history of multisystem MIS-C or MIS-A.

Experts are still learning more about how long vaccines protect against COVID-19. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

Here are some briefs on why the CDC made the recommendations that it did: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Here are some more perspectives: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...had-covid-19#Experts-react-to-Pauls-statement

Fact check: Rand Paul supports skipping the vaccine if you've had COVID-19. Is he right?

The senator has claimed people who've already recovered from COVID-19 don't need the coronavirus vaccine. But the reality is more complicated.

www.courier-journal.com

Your Questions About Coronavirus Vaccines, Answered

Consumer Reports answers questions about coronavirus vaccines and how they work, with more than 2 million vaccine doses now being given in the U.S. every day.

www.consumerreports.org

Spoiler

If I Had COVID-19, or Think I Did, Should I Still Get Vaccinated?​

Yes. The CDC says that because reinfection is possible (though rare, and unlikely in the first few months after a first infection), it’s recommended that people who have recovered from COVID-19 still get vaccinated.
At least some of the vaccine trials have included people who had recovered from COVID-19, according to Neuzil, the vaccinology professor at the University of Maryland, and it appeared to be safe for these people to get the vaccine.
Even if recovered patients have some natural immunity, the vaccine could provide some longer-term benefit, she says. The immune system’s natural response to a SARS-CoV-2 infection is varied, and in some cases protection might not last very long.
So far, the evidence suggests that the immune system boost from vaccines is much stronger and thus potentially longer-lasting than the natural immune system response, according to Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., a virologist, professor, and vice chair of the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

 

[firegiver]

Mechanical Engineering.

Oh wow you were being serious. This is kind of embarrassing for you.

 

[PawsFan_]

You seem to be forgetting about the public health reasons for vaccination. It's not just about personal protection from illness. This is why individualistic arguments against vaccination campaigns don't really make much sense. Or, another way to think about it is that you can either "mind your own business" or you can have public health, but you can't entirely have both. We have pretty good precedent for vaccines as public health tools, though, and we've used them in relatively non-intrusive ways by requiring them for participation in some things, rather than blanket mandates.

Also, since no vaccine is 100% effective, the larger the proportion of unvaccinated people, the more likely it is that there will be breakthrough infections. Plus, everyone has to shoulder the burden of care for unvaccinated people, and everybody has to deal with harsh public health measures if there's an outbreak. It's much easier to just get vaccinated than to try and roll the dice and have to go through emergency measures periodically.

Nope.

You seem to be forgetting that there is no public health concern. Everyone has the chance to get the vaccine. It's free. It's widely available. (In fact its amazing that some people have no issue about getting to a vaccine site, but its impossible for them to get an ID to vote.....but that's another issue for another thread) . If they elect not to get the vaccine and get the virus, that's on them. It's a personal health not a public concern. It's not yours or my problem.

You seem to be forgetting that this vaccine is not been through all the FDA testing. There is a reason why its not mandated. I think we can all agree that not only is this vaccine not 100% effective. I doubt its 80% effective. Just ask the Texas legislators. Loads of vaccinated folks are getting the virus. This vaccine was rushed into service with ENORMOUS political and financial pressures. You really think these products are the best they can be?

If you are under 60, COVID shouldn't be what you are worried dying of.

 

[dual_tiger]

Without combing over their trial design, it wouldn't make much sense for them to only test symptomatic people. Unless you can find something that says that's what they did, I don't know why you'd assume that.

Here's what CDC says about its recommendations: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...you have already,have recovered from COVID-19.

Spoiler

Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again. Studies have shown that vaccination provides a strong boost in protection in people who have recovered from COVID-19. Learn more about why getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

If you or your child has a history of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults or children (MIS-A or MIS-C), consider delaying vaccination until you or your child have recovered from being sick and for 90 days after the date of diagnosis of MIS-A or MIS-C. Learn more about the clinical considerations people with a history of multisystem MIS-C or MIS-A.

Experts are still learning more about how long vaccines protect against COVID-19. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

Here are some briefs on why the CDC made the recommendations that it did: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Here are some more perspectives: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...had-covid-19#Experts-react-to-Pauls-statement

Fact check: Rand Paul supports skipping the vaccine if you've had COVID-19. Is he right?

The senator has claimed people who've already recovered from COVID-19 don't need the coronavirus vaccine. But the reality is more complicated.

www.courier-journal.com

Your Questions About Coronavirus Vaccines, Answered

Consumer Reports answers questions about coronavirus vaccines and how they work, with more than 2 million vaccine doses now being given in the U.S. every day.

www.consumerreports.org

Spoiler

If I Had COVID-19, or Think I Did, Should I Still Get Vaccinated?​

Yes. The CDC says that because reinfection is possible (though rare, and unlikely in the first few months after a first infection), it’s recommended that people who have recovered from COVID-19 still get vaccinated.
At least some of the vaccine trials have included people who had recovered from COVID-19, according to Neuzil, the vaccinology professor at the University of Maryland, and it appeared to be safe for these people to get the vaccine.
Even if recovered patients have some natural immunity, the vaccine could provide some longer-term benefit, she says. The immune system’s natural response to a SARS-CoV-2 infection is varied, and in some cases protection might not last very long.
So far, the evidence suggests that the immune system boost from vaccines is much stronger and thus potentially longer-lasting than the natural immune system response, according to Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., a virologist, professor, and vice chair of the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

You post a lot of links but do you realize most if not all of them post opinions and theories with very little to no scientific data to be read. Your strategy of trying to post what you claim to be facts with non peer reviewed links is as bad as the ones the antivaxers post. Unless peer reviewed numbers are presented they are little more than opinionated puff pieces. Sure the cdc makes general recommendations but they also have shown to change them as they wish. There are numerous cases of this to be found. If you would like I could post several non peer reviewed links that propose their findings are that natural immunity is not only sufficient but is thought to provide a longer lasting immunity to Covid. And around and around we can go. As far as the Pfizer testing is concerned I will read through it again since you can’t answer it and I can’t remember where it was. Until then if you want to post links to confuse and waste my time at least have the decency to post them with actually discernible peer reviewed data. Not this we believe we think our limited sample sized shit show you have been doing all day. Thanks.

 

[PawsFan_]

It’s less about the sheer number and more about the 400% increase in daily positives over a 15 day period.

Guess what that trend looks like in 2-3 months?

1 to 4 is a 400% increase. It's not about the percentage. It about the small number of case relative to the population.

Let me put it in terms we can all understand. If Death Valley has 80,000 fans in it, only 10 have COVID. Statically, all 10 should live. More people will have the flu in the stands. 410 in the stands will have cancer.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

You post a lot of links but do you realize most if not all of them post opinions and theories with very little to no scientific data to be read. Your strategy of trying to post what you claim to be facts with non peer reviewed links is as bad as the ones the antivaxers post. Unless peer reviewed numbers are presented they are little more than opinionated puff pieces. Sure the cdc makes general recommendations but they also have shown to change them as they wish. There are numerous cases of this to be found. If you would like I could post several non peer reviewed links that propose their findings are that natural immunity is not only sufficient but is thought to provide a longer lasting immunity to Covid. And around and around we can go. As far as the Pfizer testing is concerned I will read through it again since you can’t answer it and I can’t remember where it was. Until then if you want to post links to confuse and waste my time at least have the decency to post them with actually discernible peer reviewed data. Not this we believe we think our limited sample sized shit show you have been doing all day. Thanks.

I'm posting the opinions of the experts relied upon so that we can understand this stuff. They aren't just making stuff up. The fact that they are fallible doesn't mean that they're less reliable than whatever it is you or I want to believe, or whatever cherry-picked tweets from random people on the internet we can find.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Nope.

You seem to be forgetting that there is no public health concern. Everyone has the chance to get the vaccine. It's free. It's widely available. (In fact its amazing that some people have no issue about getting to a vaccine site, but its impossible for them to get an ID to vote.....but that's another issue for another thread) . If they elect not to get the vaccine and get the virus, that's on them. It's a personal health not a public concern. It's not yours or my problem.

You seem to be forgetting that this vaccine is not been through all the FDA testing. There is a reason why its not mandated. I think we can all agree that not only is this vaccine not 100% effective. I doubt its 80% effective. Just ask the Texas legislators. Loads of vaccinated folks are getting the virus. This vaccine was rushed into service with ENORMOUS political and financial pressures. You really think these products are the best they can be?

If you are under 60, COVID shouldn't be what you are worried dying of.

You're kind of all over the place here. I don't know how you can say that there's no public health concern about a pandemic that's gone on for over a year, and because of which we've made massive, disruptive public health interventions. But that wasn't even the point: vaccines don't just protect your own personal health, they also address "public health" by preventing the spread of disease. Again, this is why vaccination isn't a purely personal decision.

The vaccines went through the same clinical trials that other vaccines have gone through, and proved to be even more effective than we were hoping for. That's how the emergency use authorizations were made, and they were made too slowly according to many people. They've been pretty amazing at tamping down the virus wherever they've been widely used. While they are being required for participation in some things, some probably are waiting for full FDA approval before requiring the vaccine. But that's just a formality at this point, as both Pfizer and Moderna have applied for full FDA approval, and Pfizer expects full approval in a couple of months.

All of this has been repeated ad nauseam, and yet people still bring this stuff up like it's never been thought of. What it all probably boils down to is people not taking COVID seriously, but I would've thought that even those people would recognize that having effective vaccines would be a way to end any apparent need for serious public health measures. Instead, it's just he same rigmarole from people who are ornery about pointing headed scientists having any authority.

 

[ladedade]

You're kind of all over the place here. I don't know how you can say that there's no public health concern about a pandemic that's gone on for over a year, and because of which we've made massive, disruptive public health interventions. But that wasn't even the point: vaccines don't just protect your own personal health, they also address "public health" by preventing the spread of disease. Again, this is why vaccination isn't a purely personal decision.

The vaccines went through the same clinical trials that other vaccines have gone through, and proved to be even more effective than we were hoping for. That's how the emergency use authorizations were made, and they were made too slowly according to many people. They've been pretty amazing at tamping down the virus wherever they've been widely used. While they are being required for participation in some things, some probably are waiting for full FDA approval before requiring the vaccine. But that's just a formality at this point, as both Pfizer and Moderna have applied for full FDA approval, and Pfizer expects full approval in a couple of months.

All of this has been repeated ad nauseam, and yet people still bring this stuff up like it's never been thought of. What it all probably boils down to is people not taking COVID seriously, but I would've thought that even those people would recognize that having effective vaccines would be a way to end any apparent need for serious public health measures. Instead, it's just he same rigmarole from people who are ornery about pointing headed scientists having any authority.

i fully support Brian Kilmeade in that if people make a choice to not get vaccinated and die, it’s their decision EXCEPT that they will likely infect a lot of people on their way to the intubator. This is the fundamental issue here that is mind-numbingly frustrating.

 

[dual_tiger]

What good are your experts opinions when other experts make claims to the contrary? Without peer reviewed data it means nothing. You can’t claim vaccinated immunity is better than natural immunity without presenting any data to prove it. You can’t claim getting vaccinated improves natural immunity without data to support that. Isn’t that how science should work? Shouldn’t the goal be to educate and not confuse. I am more than willing to entertain solid peer reviewed data and admit if I am wrong. I have looked long and hard to find data on this very subject as I have had Covid. There simply isn’t any peer reviewed data out there only expert opinions on both sides of the coin.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

i fully support Brian Kilmeade in that if people make a choice to not get vaccinated and die, it’s their decision EXCEPT that they will likely infect a lot of people on their way to the intubator. This is the fundamental issue here that is mind-numbingly frustrating.

It seems like people sort of forget that we're talking about an infectious disease, and that vaccines slow and stop the spread of infectious disease. It's not a choice that doesn't affect anybody else, which is why we take the extraordinary measure of allowing there to be vaccine requirements for participation in some things. We have such a liberal, individualistic political tradition that when we feel like we're being told what to do, we naturally fall back on the "live and let live" mantra. But stopping an infectious disease can't work that way. We really have trouble with things like biology that aren't subject to our opinions and choices.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

What good are your experts opinions when other experts make claims to the contrary? Without peer reviewed data it means nothing. You can’t claim vaccinated immunity is better than natural immunity without presenting any data to prove it. You can’t claim getting vaccinated improves natural immunity without data to support that. Isn’t that how science should work? Shouldn’t the goal be to educate and not confuse. I am more than willing to entertain solid peer reviewed data and admit if I am wrong. I have looked long and hard to find data on this very subject as I have had Covid. There simply isn’t any peer reviewed data out there only expert opinions on both sides of the coin.

Other experts aren't making claims to the contrary. Clinical trials and the data the CDC are relying on are all peer reviewed. This was cited in the different things I posted, but here's more on particular studies: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139. Again, I don't know why you'd think the CDC was just making up its rationale for recommending that recovered people get vaccinated. What's the upshot? Their rationale for recommending makes a lot more sense than the alternatives.

 

[dual_tiger]

i fully support Brian Kilmeade in that if people make a choice to not get vaccinated and die, it’s their decision EXCEPT that they will likely infect a lot of people on their way to the intubator. This is the fundamental issue here that is mind-numbingly frustrating.

I don’t know or care who this Brian guy is but I want to respond to your ending statement. How is this any different that spreading any disease to someone else and killing them? Also you do know you could possible still spread covid19 even after vaccination right? The vaccine isn’t 100% full proof.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I don’t know or care who this Brian guy is but I want to respond to your ending statement. How is this any different that spreading any disease to someone else and killing them? Also you do know you could possible still spread covid19 even after vaccination right? The vaccine isn’t 100% full proof.

COVID is more contagious than most other diseases, and more dangerous and deadly than most other very contagious diseases, which is why we've had this pandemic situation. Many other dangerous, contagious diseases have been stopped or mitigated with vaccines. While you might be able to spread COVID after being vaccinated, the chances are exponentially lower after a lot of people have been vaccinated, because there less and less hosts.

 

[dual_tiger]

Other experts aren't making claims to the contrary. Clinical trials and the data the CDC are relying on are all peer reviewed. This was cited in the different things I posted, but here's more on particular studies: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139. Again, I don't know why you'd think the CDC was just making up its rationale for recommending that recovered people get vaccinated. What's the upshot? Their rationale for recommending makes a lot more sense than the alternatives.

😂 Just stop please. Again the cdc hasn’t posted any numbers at all about the topic. They have changed recommendations on more than one occasion that isn’t really debatable is it? Oh and I thought we established we were not gonna post anymore non peer reviewed opinions. They tested 149 people guy. 😂 Do you think that is an ample sample size to make a conclusion? 😂 They don’t even produce any numbers as to what percentage it even enhances your immunity. Is it a 1% increase a 100% increase. Hey let’s all play the speculation game. 😂 I feel like you aren’t listening. Present peer reviewed data to your claims and then we can talk. It’s ok to admit you don’t know. Imagine how much confusion and misinformation could have been avoided had both political parties admitted as much…

 

[dual_tiger]

COVID is more contagious than most other diseases, and more dangerous and deadly than most other very contagious diseases, which is why we've had this pandemic situation. Many other dangerous, contagious diseases have been stopped or mitigated with vaccines. While you might be able to spread COVID after being vaccinated, the chances are exponentially lower after a lot of people have been vaccinated, because there less and less hosts.

How much lower? I don’t think there is peer reviewed data on how much lower the chances of spreading Covid is between unvaccinated vs vaccinated that have contracted Covid is there? How can there possibly be less hosts if fully vaccinated people are getting Covid? How much more dangerous is Covid than say mrsa or meningitis to someone under 35?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

😂 Just stop please. Again the cdc hasn’t posted any numbers at all about the topic. They have changed recommendations on more than one occasion that isn’t really debatable is it? Oh and I thought we established we were not gonna post anymore non peer reviewed opinions. They tested 149 people guy. 😂 Do you think that is an ample sample size to make a conclusion? 😂 They don’t even produce any numbers as to what percentage it even enhances your immunity. Is it a 1% increase a 100% increase. Hey let’s all play the speculation game. 😂 I feel like you aren’t listening. Present peer reviewed data to your claims and then we can talk. It’s ok to admit you don’t know. Imagine how much confusion and misinformation could have been avoided had both political parties admitted as much…

The study is peer reviewed. Just seems like you're trying to obfuscate things at this point, though. My choice is to put more trust in the CDC than in "my own research" that disagrees with the CDC.