Have you had a COVID-19 vaccination?

[ken_sylvania]

German Man Got 217 Covid Shots Over 29 Months
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03 ... w-it-went/

According to the article, scientists then tested his immune responses and found them normal.

I would have thought maybe they would have examined his head.

To be fair, it is probably no more risky than taking industrial size doses of horse deworming paste.

Such a person ought to have their head examined as well.

[steve-in-kville]

The only thing in this thread that makes sense any more....

FB_IMG_1709800828063.jpg

[Grace]

And now the truth is coming out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... covid.html

[Judas Maccabeus]

And now the truth is coming out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... covid.html

Although they really did “make stuff up” it was mostly based on protocols that were in place for other respiratory diseases. So that is his strong point to defend.

lockdowns, use of cloth masks and overselling the vaccines are likely his most weak point. The evidence for those was far more weak.

The sold a marginally effect vaccine as being 90+% effective, in actuality it is no better than the influenza vaccine. Dismissing the possibility that COVID came from a lab is beyond outrageous. I have had contacts with numerous mainland researchers, they would sell their mother for a breakthrough paper. If you work with dangerous pathogens, you run the risk of a lab accident or leak. The last death from Smallpox came from a well run lab in the U.K. if it can happen there, it can sure happen in China.

I have come not to trust Faucci and his tribe. I thought they were shooting straight, but so much they have stated has been more or less proven wrong.

So yes, I am more or less up to date on my COVID vaccine. Have had zero side effects. No, I am not counting on it to be vary effective. Only thing I can say, it seems to be better than nothing.

[Ken]

The sold a marginally effect vaccine as being 90+% effective, in actuality it is no better than the influenza vaccine.

What are you defining as effective? Preventing infections? Preventing hospitalizations? Or preventing death?

As the virus evolved it became increasingly contagious to the point that not much could actually be done to prevent infections.

But all the data I've seen concluded that it was highly effective in preventing deaths. Even in the later stages of the pandemic with the most virulent strains. As in 90% or more effective in preventing death compared to unvaccinated individuals. By contrast, this is what the CDC says about the flu vaccine: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccin ... vaccinated.

A 2021 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients had a 26% lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared with those who were unvaccinated.

Every study I have seen on the various COVID vaccines over the course of the pandemic (and there have been an enormous number of them) suggests much better results than that in preventing hospitalizations and death.

as for your next point

Dismissing the possibility that COVID came from a lab is beyond outrageous. I have had contacts with numerous mainland researchers, they would sell their mother for a breakthrough paper. If you work with dangerous pathogens, you run the risk of a lab accident or leak. The last death from Smallpox came from a well run lab in the U.K. if it can happen there, it can sure happen in China.

I have frankly been mystified by the fury of this discussion here in the US.

We know, definitively that the virus originated in China. And that it was due to a failure in Chinese policy. Either a failure in their research safety protocols. Or a failure in their food distribution system and "wet markets" across China where live wild animals are held for market in close quarters with people. I find the wild origin to be the much more scary scenario because it is the most likely to be repeated and most difficult to stop. And also the scenario that is most likely to repeat around the world.

We also know that the Chinese government has obstructed all international investigations into the origins of the virus. Which is frankly intolerable. The whole world should frankly stop trading with China until they come clean with what they know. And I suspect they actually do know the answer.

Finally, everything I have recently read on this subject suggests that the wild origin is by far the most plausible scenario. For example, this is from 2 months ago: https://www.contagionlive.com/view/navi ... -s-origins

The origins of COVID-19 are the subject of ongoing scientific inquiry and a key aspect of global scientific efforts. Current research supports the hypothesis of a natural origin, including sampling, epidemiology, viral evolution, and genomic epidemiology. This conclusion is based on the observed interaction patterns between animals and humans and the known mutation and evolution behavior of COVID-19.

Saskia Popescu, PhD, MPH, MA, FAPIC, is an epidemiologist and Fellow of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (FAPIC), specializing in infection prevention and public health.

"The conversation on COVID origins is very complex,” says Popescu. “I like to recognize that we are never going to get that level of evidence that people want. But overwhelmingly we do see from an epidemiological perspective, from genomic sampling and surveillance, and just from our knowledge of coronaviruses, and zoonotic diseases, that that's likely the origin of this."

Emphasis on epidemiological perspectives, genomic sampling, and understanding of zoonotic diseases supports considering natural zoonotic spillover as a source of the outbreak. Acknowledging challenges in pinpointing the exact moment or mechanism of transmission from animals to humans suggests accepting current evidence limits and steering the conversation towards implications for zoonotic disease prevention, lab safety, and future pandemic preparedness.

"From an outbreak perspective, we need to know the source so we can prevent it in the future,” says Popescu. “If you look at the likelihood that it is a zoonotic spillover event, then we can focus on addressing that from a One Health perspective, we can look at increasing biosurveillance, we can look at the risks from deforestation and climate change that are increasing, you know, animal habitats changing and our interactions with animals."

It suggests that focusing on the virus's likely zoonotic nature guides preventive measures and promotes a view of pandemic preparedness. It sees the discussion as a chance to improve global health security through better collaboration and information exchange.

I'm in close contact with hundreds of teenagers on a daily basis. So I stay up to date on all my vaccines without exception. COVID included.

[Josh]

Although they really did “make stuff up” it was mostly based on protocols that were in place for other respiratory diseases. So that is his strong point to defend.

lockdowns, use of cloth masks and overselling the vaccines are likely his most weak point. The evidence for those was far more weak.

The sold a marginally effect vaccine as being 90+% effective, in actuality it is no better than the influenza vaccine. Dismissing the possibility that COVID came from a lab is beyond outrageous. I have had contacts with numerous mainland researchers, they would sell their mother for a breakthrough paper. If you work with dangerous pathogens, you run the risk of a lab accident or leak. The last death from Smallpox came from a well run lab in the U.K. if it can happen there, it can sure happen in China.

I have come not to trust Faucci and his tribe. I thought they were shooting straight, but so much they have stated has been more or less proven wrong.

One of the really unfortunate side effects of this was that this destroyed trust in public health agencies, which had spent decades - even centuries - earning the public's trust. That trust is gone now and is replaced by partisan allegiances, resulting in the rather silly present scenario where Democrats are pro-mask and Republicans are anti-mask. The actual merits behind these things is no longer even part of the equation.

I can no longer have a reasonable discussion with someone who is prone to believing in conspiracy theories and who leans more right-wing by appealing to generally recognised health authorities.

Likewise, if I am talking to a left-wing person, if I express even the slightest scepticism about something like the 6-foot-rule, they instantly assume I am some caricature of an extreme anti-science vaccine-denier type of person.

[Ernie]

The efforts were about mitigation. Mitigation does not mean total safety from the virus, but simply things people can do to lessen their chances of getting infected. Obviously, the officials made some educated guesses at the beginning based on other viruses... some of these guesses didn't end up being very helpful... but by the end of the pandemic, little could be done to mitigate the spread other than staying on properties long distances apart which was not really an option for most people in the US.

I don't fault health officials for trying to mitigate the spread. I have a friend who works at Danville, PA hospital, and it was the two worst years of his life... working long hours of overtime every week for two years... caring for all the Covid patients who flouted mitigation efforts, and not being able to care for people who had other severe health problems.

In the future, I think that during pandemics, those who don't want to attempt mitigation measures can have their own stores/hospitals, and those who do want to attempt mitigation can have their own stores/hospitals. And then let the markets drive things from there. I think this would be much better than having federal government control.

[Josh]

The efforts were about mitigation.

Making stuff up with no scientific basis isn't mitigation, though.

Obviously, the officials made some educated guesses at the beginning based on other viruses

Well, except the official in charge of all that says now it wasn't an educated guess - it was just made up with no sound rationale at all. It wasn't done in good faith.

I don't fault health officials for trying to mitigate the spread. I have a friend who works at Danville, PA hospital, and it was the two worst years of his life... working long hours of overtime every week for two years... caring for all the Covid patients who flouted mitigation efforts, and not being able to care for people who had other severe health problems.

I would fault the health officials in charge for making stuff up and then acting like utter nonsense would do anything to mitigate the spread, and then blaming people who ignored their advice which we now know would do nothing to stop the spread for all of these problems.

The net effect we have now is that if we have another public health crisis, most of us aren't going to believe what public health officials call for if they call for society-wrecking lockdowns and major changes to our behaviour. Do you consider that a good or a bad thing?

[Ken]

The efforts were about mitigation.

Making stuff up with no scientific basis isn't mitigation, though.

Obviously, the officials made some educated guesses at the beginning based on other viruses

Well, except the official in charge of all that says now it wasn't an educated guess - it was just made up with no sound rationale at all. It wasn't done in good faith.

I don't fault health officials for trying to mitigate the spread. I have a friend who works at Danville, PA hospital, and it was the two worst years of his life... working long hours of overtime every week for two years... caring for all the Covid patients who flouted mitigation efforts, and not being able to care for people who had other severe health problems.

I would fault the health officials in charge for making stuff up and then acting like utter nonsense would do anything to mitigate the spread, and then blaming people who ignored their advice which we now know would do nothing to stop the spread for all of these problems.

The net effect we have now is that if we have another public health crisis, most of us aren't going to believe what public health officials call for if they call for society-wrecking lockdowns and major changes to our behaviour. Do you consider that a good or a bad thing?

There is absolutely scientific basis for masking, social distancing, and vaccines in the combating of disease. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Barriers, physical distance, and vaccines are how every pandemic is fought.

What we didn't have at the beginning of this pandemic, with a brand new virus, was a lot of evidence about how robust masks needed to be, and how much distance you needed to maintain from infected individuals. So absent better information that was unavailable at that time, the logical course of action was to recommend the same simple measures that had been used previously in other pandemics. Some recommendations like sterilizing foods disappeared pretty quickly as we learned more.

Roll back to the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, before there were any vaccines, people were dying right and left around the world in horrific ways, and suggest what alternative recommendations the government should have made. People by the tens of thousands were getting sick, going to the hospital, and dying horrible deaths drowning in their own fluids. And the virus is being transmitted by air. How do you tell people to stay safe? Especially people who have to go out and work in public? What would your recommendations have been in the spring of 2020 when COVID wards were overflowing and there were American cities with dead people stacking up like cordwood in refrigerated containers on the street?

Hindsight is always 20/20. In my field of education I would say that the biggest failure was to re-open schools faster once the vaccines were available. Too many schools took too long to reopen even many months after vaccines were available to everyone. And I would call that a failure of national leadership which gave very little guidance to individual schools and school districts and basically just left it up to every individual school and school district to sort that stuff out themselves when they were most definitely not equipped to do so.

[ohio jones]

The net effect we have now is that if we have another public health crisis, most of us aren't going to believe what public health officials call for if they call for society-wrecking lockdowns and major changes to our behaviour. Do you consider that a good or a bad thing?

In terror the Boy ran toward the village shouting "Wolf! Wolf!" But though the Villagers heard the cry, they did not run to help him as they had before. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again" they said.