Covid vaccine

[biaherl]

you guys get your omicron shots yet?

Get my booster shot on the 6th. Hopefully that will help with these internet drops that I've been getting lately. The lizard overlords have been so strict with their 5G. Must have to do with the toilets on the space station

[Sativa Lung]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Wtf, this mountain biker guy needs to get of social media and get into some serious therapy pronto, holy shit. Pretty obvious he has some major underlying psychological problems.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

i'm not saying it's these dudes own fault, but when i got my shot, the doc said no sports for a few days, since that might be a reason for people developing myocarditis. knowing what i read on here on how others went about it, most got the shot and when they felt it wouldn't put them down for a day or two just continued doing excercise and whatever. especially the people who are into training were all like "yeah they said no sports, but i have to excercise, bro."

lots of people that got a shot on here went skating the same day, one of my coworkers probably got smashed for three days after his jab to clear the headache.

you don't know how well they followed their doctors advise. a lot of very fit people think they are invincible. generally if you are a high performance athlete your heart is trained to basically work best under duress, you can overtrain your heart to the point where your normal heartrate might get too low to pump enough blood into your system. those inflammatory diseases of the heart are pretty common for soccer players and others. just because someone is into sports or able to bring exceptional stuff to the table in terms of records doesn't mean they are overall healthy.

so to say look, these athletes, who are in top shape got myocarditis and so on from getting the vaccine, doesn't cut it.

my anecdotal evidence is that besides two people everyone in my circle of friends, acquaintances or coworkers is vaccinated, and i'd guess most of them got one of the mrna vaccines. just my sample there was literally no one, not a single person that had sketchy side effects. the sample is probably around a hundred people i'd say. so i basically know no one in person that had really bad side effects aside from sore arm, headache for a day or two, feeling hungover for a day or two. literally not a single one had something worse to tell. i'm not ruling it out, after all the docs warned about it.

these athletes aren't doctors after all, and history shown us time and time again that their docs can also be literally insane or predatory. so to assume just because they are physically strong they can't get sick is straight up idiotic. they are constantly operating on the edge. if you'd know people that do extreme shit like ultrarunning or any time of hypercompetitive dude you know they tend to get mad sick after periods of excessive training and competing. because that shit crushes your system.

[close]

Is English your second langauge? This post is full of weird assumptions. Who said anything about physically strong people not getting sick? Cool that you know ultrarunners though.

[close]

yes, english is my second language, you asshat. you had to make another account just to ask that stupid question? i'm high as fuck too, i didn't care to sound elaborate. what i wrote is still true tho.

the poster i replied to came up with these examples, like the one of the diver who got myocarditis, even though that guy can hold his breath for ten minutes, making it sound superdramatic that of all people this superhuman had to suffer sideeffects. my reply basically said it's wrong to assume people like him can't get the side effects and to use them as examples how dangerous the vaccine could be is misleading imo.

i'm sure you still didn't get the point.

[close]

Your English is great, Frank, and you made a lot of sense.

[close]

Agreed, both on the guy needing serious psychological help (said as someone receiving said help) and Frank writing English well. I was actually unaware English wasn’t his first language.

[close]

haha, i can totally see what the dude means to be fair. i guess i try to sound native i guess but sometimes i think to myself "damn, only someone with english as a second language would write it like that lol". i should also probably have said "eloquently" instead of "elaborate"... anyways.

just found out germany has a pretty low vaccination rate compared to the rest of europe, around 65% and we are in the midst of a fourth wave rn and it's worse than it has ever been, but they're not closing shit down anymore. from saturday on the service industry is open for vaccinated people only. so unvaxxed people can only go grocery shopping now. kind of harsh, but i can see how they try to pressure the rest into getting vaccinated. all the eu countries with higher vaccination rates are doing much better.

[close]

Gibraltar with 100% vax rate is experiencing a fourth wave.
Israel, Singapore with some of highest rates experiencing the same.
African countries with 6% vax rate experiencing very low death rates.

The jab does not work.  In England a higher proportion of people hospitalised are double-jabbed.
Big pharma has sold a lie.

[close]

If you take a quick look at goggle you'd see for the current 7 day averages...
Gibralter = 0 deaths
Isreal = 2 deaths
Singapore = 3 deaths

More double jabbed people may get hospitalized, but the vaccination effectiveness is about 90% against severe disease and hospitalization.  If for example 1 million people were vaxxed, 10% of that is still 100,000 people.  No vaccine is 100% effective and some people don't trigger a good immune response to a vaccine for whatever reason, but 90% is still really good.  The flu vaccine is only about 60% effective.

Flu vaccination efficacy varies wildly season to season, sometimes as it's much lower than that. This is because there are so many variants that its kind of a guessing game as to which ones will end up circulating and they have to formulate the shots before flu season to ensure proper supply. Its actually a really interesting topic.

So yeah, safer and more effective than most of the stuff we've already been using to massively increase human lifespan over the past 50 years. Its almost like the people who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding this shit know what they're doing or something.

[Movies]

It's pretty crazy how the newest flavour of Covid has 32 mutations on the spike protein alone. Wonder how that will effect the usefulness of the MRNA vaccines since they only target that specific component of the virus.

[DarthDingusMaximus]

Had my reluctance at first but I got the moderna one and my booster last week, I just don’t like the idea of getting sick when not needed.

[Decreed Bratton]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Wtf, this mountain biker guy needs to get of social media and get into some serious therapy pronto, holy shit. Pretty obvious he has some major underlying psychological problems.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

i'm not saying it's these dudes own fault, but when i got my shot, the doc said no sports for a few days, since that might be a reason for people developing myocarditis. knowing what i read on here on how others went about it, most got the shot and when they felt it wouldn't put them down for a day or two just continued doing excercise and whatever. especially the people who are into training were all like "yeah they said no sports, but i have to excercise, bro."

lots of people that got a shot on here went skating the same day, one of my coworkers probably got smashed for three days after his jab to clear the headache.

you don't know how well they followed their doctors advise. a lot of very fit people think they are invincible. generally if you are a high performance athlete your heart is trained to basically work best under duress, you can overtrain your heart to the point where your normal heartrate might get too low to pump enough blood into your system. those inflammatory diseases of the heart are pretty common for soccer players and others. just because someone is into sports or able to bring exceptional stuff to the table in terms of records doesn't mean they are overall healthy.

so to say look, these athletes, who are in top shape got myocarditis and so on from getting the vaccine, doesn't cut it.

my anecdotal evidence is that besides two people everyone in my circle of friends, acquaintances or coworkers is vaccinated, and i'd guess most of them got one of the mrna vaccines. just my sample there was literally no one, not a single person that had sketchy side effects. the sample is probably around a hundred people i'd say. so i basically know no one in person that had really bad side effects aside from sore arm, headache for a day or two, feeling hungover for a day or two. literally not a single one had something worse to tell. i'm not ruling it out, after all the docs warned about it.

these athletes aren't doctors after all, and history shown us time and time again that their docs can also be literally insane or predatory. so to assume just because they are physically strong they can't get sick is straight up idiotic. they are constantly operating on the edge. if you'd know people that do extreme shit like ultrarunning or any time of hypercompetitive dude you know they tend to get mad sick after periods of excessive training and competing. because that shit crushes your system.

[close]

Is English your second langauge? This post is full of weird assumptions. Who said anything about physically strong people not getting sick? Cool that you know ultrarunners though.

[close]

yes, english is my second language, you asshat. you had to make another account just to ask that stupid question? i'm high as fuck too, i didn't care to sound elaborate. what i wrote is still true tho.

the poster i replied to came up with these examples, like the one of the diver who got myocarditis, even though that guy can hold his breath for ten minutes, making it sound superdramatic that of all people this superhuman had to suffer sideeffects. my reply basically said it's wrong to assume people like him can't get the side effects and to use them as examples how dangerous the vaccine could be is misleading imo.

i'm sure you still didn't get the point.

[close]

Your English is great, Frank, and you made a lot of sense.

[close]

Agreed, both on the guy needing serious psychological help (said as someone receiving said help) and Frank writing English well. I was actually unaware English wasn’t his first language.

[close]

haha, i can totally see what the dude means to be fair. i guess i try to sound native i guess but sometimes i think to myself "damn, only someone with english as a second language would write it like that lol". i should also probably have said "eloquently" instead of "elaborate"... anyways.

just found out germany has a pretty low vaccination rate compared to the rest of europe, around 65% and we are in the midst of a fourth wave rn and it's worse than it has ever been, but they're not closing shit down anymore. from saturday on the service industry is open for vaccinated people only. so unvaxxed people can only go grocery shopping now. kind of harsh, but i can see how they try to pressure the rest into getting vaccinated. all the eu countries with higher vaccination rates are doing much better.

[close]

Gibraltar with 100% vax rate is experiencing a fourth wave.
Israel, Singapore with some of highest rates experiencing the same.
African countries with 6% vax rate experiencing very low death rates.

The jab does not work.  In England a higher proportion of people hospitalised are double-jabbed.
Big pharma has sold a lie.

[close]

If you take a quick look at goggle you'd see for the current 7 day averages...
Gibralter = 0 deaths
Isreal = 2 deaths
Singapore = 3 deaths

More double jabbed people may get hospitalized, but the vaccination effectiveness is about 90% against severe disease and hospitalization.  If for example 1 million people were vaxxed, 10% of that is still 100,000 people.  No vaccine is 100% effective and some people don't trigger a good immune response to a vaccine for whatever reason, but 90% is still really good.  The flu vaccine is only about 60% effective.

[close]

Flu vaccination efficacy varies wildly season to season, sometimes as it's much lower than that. This is because there are so many variants that its kind of a guessing game as to which ones will end up circulating and they have to formulate the shots before flu season to ensure proper supply. Its actually a really interesting topic.

So yeah, safer and more effective than most of the stuff we've already been using to massively increase human lifespan over the past 50 years. Its almost like the people who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding this shit know what they're doing or something.

Correct.  They are guessing at which flu strains are circulating.  Also there there are many flu strains like H1N1, H3N2 etc.  There is currently only 1 SARS-Cov-2.  There may be many mutations, but it may or may not mean a lot in the long run.  Mu and Lamba didn't do much to displace Delta.  Omicron may, but it's too early to tell.  I feel the vaccine will still be effective against it even with the 32 spike protein changes.

People point to the vaccines not working and effectiveness waining, but there's more to it.  Like most vaccines it will boost your antibodies which helps prevent infection for the first 6-8 months, then naturally come down.  However, your T and B cells will still have memory and kick in when you get infected. So now that vaxxed people are getting infected they think it's not working because the antibodies decreased, yet it still protects against severe disease and death.  People get infected with the polio virus all the time and don't know it.  If you took stool samples you'd find it.  Yet it's doing its job because it's preventing paralysis.

No one wants to get sick so if you want a booster then go for it.  Just remember you'll probably have to do it every 6-8 months.

[T-Funke]

Can someone help me understand absolute risk versus relative risk and how this relates to the vaccines? Seeing the effectiveness numbers being at like 1.1% with absolute risk reduction.

[Loki700]

Can someone help me understand absolute risk versus relative risk and how this relates to the vaccines? Seeing the effectiveness numbers being at like 1.1% with absolute risk reduction.

That number isn't from an actual study, and is from an article in The Lancet, the authors of which are disappointed that their article is being misinterpreted and twisted to lie about the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Relative Risk Reduction tells us how much the risk of infection is reduced compared to the control group of the study that received no vaccine.  It basically tells you the efficacy, or how well the vaccine protected clinical trial participants from getting sick or very sick.

The Absolute Risk Reduction is the arithmetic difference between the percentage of people who got infected within the two groups.  When the event rate is lower, the ARR is lower, and when the event rate is higher, the ARR is higher.  They are not typically looked at because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs.  However, the ARR will always appear low when compared to the RRR.

To help you understand better, if you had 40,000 people in a study, half of them got the vaccine and half were in the control group and did not, and 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 in the vaccine group got sick, you'd have an RRR, or efficacy, of 100%.  However, since the reduction in number of people sick is 200-0 = 200, and there were 20,000 people in the vaccine group, the ARR would be 200/20,000 = 1%.  If you wanted to increase the ARR to say 10%, while keeping an RRR of 100%, you would need 2,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group to get sick.

If we look at the above example, and say 10 people with the vaccine got sick, that would be an RRR of 1 - (10/200) = 95%.  The ARR would be 200/20,000 - 10/20,000 = 0.95%.  Now if you double the numbers so 20 people got sick with the vaccine, and 400 in the control group, the RRR is still 95%, but the ARR becomes 1.9%.

RRR is used because it means that irrespective of the transmission setting, it will reduce the risk of infection by that percentage.

Edit:  Huh, the umlaut in your name confuses Slap and won’t let me quote you.  Weird.  Took me a while to figure out why the message wouldn’t post.

[T-Funke]

Thanks for such a detailed reply Loki! Ok, so if I’m getting it, the effectiveness numbers are based on one study and the conditions of the study/who they involved, etc.? It seems like this would allow for the manufacturers to conduct studies that would lead to very high effectiveness numbers, and as a result give a false sense of security when it comes to effectiveness. I know when the vaccines were first being rolled out Biden, Walensky, Fauci et al were making some pretty bold claims about how much protection one was afforded by the shot.

I just found a good wired article that gets into this and I definitely interpreted the numbers in the way that the article outlines https://www.wired.com/story/the-statistical-secrets-of-covid-19-vaccines/

When the new vaccines came out, their makers and the government touted their efficacy with some impressive numbers—95% for Pfizer, 94% for Moderna, 67% for J&J. Sweet!

But “efficacy” has a specific meaning in the world of vaccine statistics, and it’s not “Hey, if I get a shot, my chance of getting Covid is now just 5%!” Ha, no, you dope. Because your chance of getting Covid wasn’t 100% in the first place. See, vaccine efficacy is actually a relative risk reduction. It’s a ratio comparing the risk of infection in people who got vaccinated versus people who didn’t (the control group). Since the basic function of a vaccine is, indeed, to keep people from catching a disease, you can imagine that this number can end up being pretty big—regardless of those people’s chances of getting Covid.

Ok, so all that aside, could we use the hospitalization/death rate of the vaccinated and divide that by the number of overall vaccinated to get at a more realistic effectiveness number? Do manufacturer’s update their numbers? Thank you again for the info.

[Loki700]

Thanks for such a detailed reply Loki! Ok, so if I’m getting it, the effectiveness numbers are based on one study and the conditions of the study/who they involved, etc.? It seems like this would allow for the manufacturers to conduct studies that would lead to very high effectiveness numbers, and as a result give a false sense of security when it comes to effectiveness. I know when the vaccines were first being rolled out Biden, Walensky, Fauci et al were making some pretty bold claims about how much protection one was afforded by the shot.

I just found a good wired article that gets into this and I definitely interpreted the numbers in the way that the article outlines https://www.wired.com/story/the-statistical-secrets-of-covid-19-vaccines/

Expand Quote

When the new vaccines came out, their makers and the government touted their efficacy with some impressive numbers—95% for Pfizer, 94% for Moderna, 67% for J&J. Sweet!

But “efficacy” has a specific meaning in the world of vaccine statistics, and it’s not “Hey, if I get a shot, my chance of getting Covid is now just 5%!” Ha, no, you dope. Because your chance of getting Covid wasn’t 100% in the first place. See, vaccine efficacy is actually a relative risk reduction. It’s a ratio comparing the risk of infection in people who got vaccinated versus people who didn’t (the control group). Since the basic function of a vaccine is, indeed, to keep people from catching a disease, you can imagine that this number can end up being pretty big—regardless of those people’s chances of getting Covid.

[close]

Ok, so all that aside, could we use the hospitalization/death rate of the vaccinated and divide that by the number of overall vaccinated to get at a more realistic effectiveness number? Do manufacturer’s update their numbers? Thank you again for the info.

They’re actually based on multiple rounds of studies, 3 to be exact.  The studies are also conducted by a third party per the FDA regulations to avoid massaging of the numbers.  The claims being made weren’t really exaggerated, they just weren’t as clear as they could have been I think, and I think that was largely to avoid confusing people.

I skimmed the wired article, and it does an ok job of explaining the numbers, but the RRR compares the actual number of sick people from one group to another, so it already controls for fact that you don’t have a 100% risk of contracting the virus.

The main problem with trying to calculate effectiveness based on real world results is that there’s no control of variables.  There could be other factors that skew the numbers, either making the vaccine appear to be more or less effective.  That’s why official numbers are always based on lab results, because that’s where we can control variables and be certain that the outcome is actually due to the vaccine, or that car X truly gets more mileage than car Y, all things being equal.  As a result, I don’t know for sure, but I would be inclined to say that manufacturers wouldn’t update their numbers without another study simply because the numbers wouldn’t be accurate.

To give an example, perhaps people who are vaccinated are more careful in general (not saying this is the case), so they are less likely to even be exposed to the virus.  This would make the vaccine appear to be more effective than it actually is.  Conversely, they could also be less careful due to feeling safer, so they could be exposed more times than the average person, making the vaccine appear to be less effective because the more times you’re exposed the more likely you are to get it with or without the vaccine.

The goal of the study isn’t to give exact numbers of what you can expect in the real world.  It’s to give you an idea of how the vaccine will perform with all other factors being the same.  To go back to the mileage example, that’s usually why people don’t reach the exact mileage listed on cars, but you’ll still see the basic trend of one car getting better mileage than another.

I hope that helps make it clearer.

[Movies]

I think I'll hold out for the Omega variant. Hopefully we'll have some long term safety data by then.

[Loki700]

I think I'll hold out for the Omega variant. Hopefully we'll have some long term safety data by then.

I feel the need to quote this again.  We have long term safety data.  The vaccines are safe long term.  There literally isn't a possibility to develop side effects a long time after you get the vaccine, and the actual long term effects are basically non-existent. 

You got the definition of long term effects wrong. (As many do)

Long term effects don‘t occure after 20 years. They occure right after vaccination and persist for a long time.

[Doodily]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I think I'll hold out for the Omega variant. Hopefully we'll have some long term safety data by then.

[close]

I feel the need to quote this again.  We have long term safety data.  The vaccines are safe long term.  There literally isn't a possibility to develop side effects a long time after you get the vaccine, and the actual long term effects are basically non-existent. 

Expand Quote

You got the definition of long term effects wrong. (As many do)

Long term effects don‘t occure after 20 years. They occure right after vaccination and persist for a long time.

[close]

[close]

Ok then, how about the short term side effects?

https://goodsciencing.com/covid/71-athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-26-die-after-covid-shot/

That page just lists of a bunch of athletes that died, including "autopsy resulted in suicide verdict", "ruled as accidental xanax/fentanyl overdose", "ruled suicide by self-inflicted gunshot to the head", "possibly of cancer" ...  So the vaccine is now causing suicidal thoughts and fentanyl overdose?

[thebacker]

What a surprise a website called good sciencing has misleading information

[T-Funke]

So are we going to ignore the vaers database reporting? I get that there are issues with the reporting system and that neither of the two institutions that run the system (FDA & CDC) verify the claims, easily falsifiable, etc. but as far as I know this is the only public reporting system for vaccine injury.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Based on their numbers, as of November 19th they are listing almost 20,000 deaths, 100k hospitalizations, and 30k permanently disabled.

I personally know someone who went into anaphylactic shock immediately following her jab, but luckily it was being administered at a fire station and they had an epinephrine shot on hand and she was ultimately ok.

The vibe on here regarding vaccines is pretty clear, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to talk about vaccine injuries if they are occurring. I just wish there was a more easily verifiable source of information regarding this stuff, and if anyone is aware of a place to find unambiguous confirmable numbers I’d like to see it.

[Bunk Moreland]

Shut your bitch ass up.

[T-Funke]

Shut your bitch ass up.

Exactly what I was talking about with the vibe. You know the vibes.

[Loki700]

So are we going to ignore the vaers database reporting? I get that there are issues with the reporting system and that neither of the two institutions that run the system (FDA & CDC) verify the claims, easily falsifiable, etc. but as far as I know this is the only public reporting system for vaccine injury.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Based on their numbers, as of November 19th they are listing almost 20,000 deaths, 100k hospitalizations, and 30k permanently disabled.

I personally know someone who went into anaphylactic shock immediately following her jab, but luckily it was being administered at a fire station and they had an epinephrine shot on hand and she was ultimately ok.

The vibe on here regarding vaccines is pretty clear, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to talk about vaccine injuries if they are occurring. I just wish there was a more easily verifiable source of information regarding this stuff, and if anyone is aware of a place to find unambiguous confirmable numbers I’d like to see it.

We aren’t ignoring it, we’re just understanding what it means because bringing that up is quite honestly a red herring.  That’s why people here dismiss people that bring it up, because they are usually not arguing in good faith.

Legally, anyone who is vaccinated who happens to die, no matter the cause, needs to be reported to VAERS. If I died in a car crash today, my death would be reported to VAERS and I would be one of those numbers.  The numbers in the link you provided don’t seem to match up with actual VAERS data which shows 10,000 deaths, or 0.002% of vaccinated people.  The average death rate among the general population is 0.72%.  That alone should show that the vaccine likely isn’t the cause.  To date only 6 deaths have been linked to Covid vaccines.

The same is true for the other events, where it is reported whether or not it is definitively caused by the vaccine.  Anaphylaxis can happen, but only to 0.0005% of the population.

Compare this to the severe side effects of the actual virus.  1.6% of the 49,400,000 people in the US who have gotten Covid have died.  More than 25% of people have had long term effects, including permanent disability.

When you look at the numbers, it becomes clear that the vaccines aren’t to blame for all of the reported incidents, and even if they were, they are still extremely lower than the adverse effects of Covid itself.

Bringing up these incidents is just fear mongering, full stop.

[sketchyrider]

being a vaccine skeptic must be CRIPPLING because surely they apply the same level of skepticism to all other substances.

must have to read all ingredients lists for sodium benzoate and other preservatives, avoid meat and dairy (especially cured meats like bacon), no alcohol tobacco or drugs, no charred/grilled or fried foods, anything with the california prop 65 warning can't enter your home. all things scientifically linked, or proven to be the cause of several disorders or cancers.

hey i'm just bringing up the facts, i know the general vibe on these boards about bacon, but i think it is worth discussing those that have been bacon injured.

[JeremyScottofChapman]

being a vaccine skeptic must be CRIPPLING because surely they apply the same level of skepticism to all other substances.

must have to read all ingredients lists for sodium benzoate and other preservatives, avoid meat and dairy (especially cured meats like bacon), no alcohol tobacco or drugs, no charred/grilled or fried foods, anything with the california prop 65 warning can't enter your home. all things scientifically linked, or proven to be the cause of several disorders or cancers.

hey i'm just bringing up the facts, i know the general vibe on these boards about bacon, but i think it is worth discussing those that have been bacon injured.

I get what you're saying but I do think there are a good amount of people that live like that and care about what they put into their bodies and bring into their homes.  Obviously there is a plethora of things to watch out for and its pretty difficult to stay on top of it but that doesn't mean you should just give up trying.  I am just a person, trying to live my best life.  I don't have all the answers.  But from my personal experience governments, institutions, and especially big pharma are driven by monetary gain and absolutely do not give a shit about people.  I am skeptical to trust them and I think that is fair.  I am not anti-vaccine and I think everyone has a right to do what they feel is safe for them.  The problem is people from both sides not willing to budge at all...I am willing to say it's extremely unlikely the vaccine is bad or gonna kill anyone, why can't anyone who is pro vaccine admit the vaccine isn't as effective as originally promised?  That right now being unvaccinated I can still get and spread covid but that would remain the same if I was vaccinated.  Also the myth that I am killing anyone because I am unvaccinated is completely false.  Covid is killing people.

[T-Funke]

Haha, you nailed me sketchyrider. I do practice a plant based diet and am straight edge for the most part, save for some psychedelics on occasion.

I’ve already had covid and recovered and it was an incredibly mild experience. Some sniffling, a bit of sore throat and lethargy for two weeks, and that was it. I have had the flu once in my life and have gotten sick twice in the last ten years, including covid. My family members who practice a plant based diet have had similar experiences with their health.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am incredibly cautious and thoughtful about everything I put into my body, which is why I am still trying to accurately navigate all the information about these drugs. I have never seen anything pushed harder by the media, and the fact that Pfizer sponsors so many of the news programs gives me serious cause for concern. If this is not appropriate to talk about on this thread, please let me know.

[mj23]

Let's face it, the choice to get vaxed up is basically a consumer decision, in a world where consumer choice is presented as the only meaningful avenue we have for self-determination. The newness of it and the weird brand-shopping and the constant promotion in tv and radio advertisements makes it feel like buying a brand of toothpaste. And lots of people prefer to buy fluoride-free hippie toothpastes because they rightfully suspect that big pharma is knowingly promoting harmful crap in every other product they shill. But if you're willing to look past all the sketchy crap, fluoride does actually help keep your teeth from rotting into mush. At a certain point most vaccines become less controversial, like polio, MMR, etc. There are still some freaks who want to resist em but the majority will just take the minor risks so they can enroll in school or whatever.

Anyway we're at a point now where at least the anti-vax crowd can get some pills or infusions or whatever should they end up getting really sick. Covid was always survivable for the vast majority, and it's becoming moreso as treatments improve. The days of getting your lungs blown up by a ventillator because nobody knows any better are mostly over, thank goodness. So you can take the miniscule risk of vaccine side effects or a somewhat less miniscule (but still acceptable to many) risk of covid complications. And of course you can argue about it as a way of asserting your consumer identity no matter which path you choose. The pharma bosses are laughing all the way to the bank either way.

[Frank]

a coworker who is fully vaxxed, tested positive, but from what i know everyone he's been with at work has tested negative since, so i guess the vaccine still does a pretty good job preventing the infection, even if some people still get it. he apparently came down from a cold or maybe even the flu he had two weeks prior, so maybe he got it cause he was extra weakened. he feels alright so far though.

[Loki700]

why can't anyone who is pro vaccine admit the vaccine isn't as effective as originally promised?  That right now being unvaccinated I can still get and spread covid but that would remain the same if I was vaccinated.

This is just patently false, or at least disingenuous because you're implying that the risk is the same.

In August, 0.88% of unvaccinated people contracted Covid, while 0.13% of vaccinated people contracted Covid which shows 85% efficacy.  People who were unvaccinated were 6.8 times as likely to contract Covid.  Even going with the most recent numbers from October of 0.45% and 0.09%, that's still 5 times as likely and 80% efficacy.

Why don't we look at deaths too?  In August, 0.018% of unvaccinated people who got Covid died, while only 0.001% of vaccinated people who got Covid died, meaning that your risk of dying was 18 times higher, and funnily enough that shows a 95% efficacy.  Most recent numbers?  0.007% and 0.0006%, meaning a 9 times higher risk and an efficacy of 93%.

You can only spread the virus if you actually get sick, so a lower likelihood of getting sick means you're less likely to spread the virus, yeah?  Also, you can only spread the virus for about half the time you're sick, yeah?  So if you have less severe symptoms, you're less likely to cough to spread it, and if your time that you're sick is cut in half, which is the current trend, then your time that you're contagious is cut in half, yeah?

All of that means that you're far far less likely to spread the virus to other people if you're vaccinated, because you're less likely to contract it, and if you do the milder symptoms and shorter window means you're still less likely to spread the virus.

If you're more likely to spread the virus, that means more people will get infected, meaning the virus is more likely to mutate and create new strains, which will in turn infect more people, right?  So you absolutely are killing people by refusing to get vaccinated if you're fully able to be vaccinated, because they have been shown to be extremely safe.

I’ve already had covid and recovered and it was an incredibly mild experience. Some sniffling, a bit of sore throat and lethargy for two weeks, and that was it...

...I have never seen anything pushed harder by the media, and the fact that Pfizer sponsors so many of the news programs gives me serious cause for concern.

My experience was the same except I also lost smell.  You and I are extremely lucky.  I have had friends who were perfectly healthy and wound up in the hospital on a ventilator.  It's a complete crapshoot how you'll react to the virus.

As for the media pushing the vaccine hard, it's because if we don't vaccinate then the virus will mutate and more people will die.  That's how Delta and Omicron came about like I mentioned in PMs.  Vaccines have been pushed hard in the past, like inoculations for smallpox and the polio vaccine.  It's actually a pretty standard response for vaccines to be pushed hard during an epidemic/pandemic because they're the only way to truly deal with the illness.  This is just the first pandemic of this scale to exist in a society where media is so prevalent.

Anyway we're at a point now where at least the anti-vax crowd can get some pills or infusions or whatever should they end up getting really sick.

I think this is a really bad take, because without being vaccinated they are still more likely to spread it and lead to mutations that could be harder to defend against or could be less survivable.  People who can get vaccinated still should.

[JeremyScottofChapman]

Expand Quote

why can't anyone who is pro vaccine admit the vaccine isn't as effective as originally promised?  That right now being unvaccinated I can still get and spread covid but that would remain the same if I was vaccinated.

[close]

This is just patently false, or at least disingenuous because you're implying that the risk is the same.

In August, 0.88% of unvaccinated people contracted Covid, while 0.13% of vaccinated people contracted Covid which shows 85% efficacy.  People who were unvaccinated were 6.8 times as likely to contract Covid.  Even going with the most recent numbers from October of 0.45% and 0.09%, that's still 5 times as likely and 80% efficacy.

Why don't we look at deaths too?  In August, 0.018% of unvaccinated people who got Covid died, while only 0.001% of vaccinated people who got Covid died, meaning that your risk of dying was 18 times higher, and funnily enough that shows a 95% efficacy.  Most recent numbers?  0.007% and 0.0006%, meaning a 9 times higher risk and an efficacy of 93%.

You can only spread the virus if you actually get sick, so a lower likelihood of getting sick means you're less likely to spread the virus, yeah?  Also, you can only spread the virus for about half the time you're sick, yeah?  So if you have less severe symptoms, you're less likely to cough to spread it, and if your time that you're sick is cut in half, which is the current trend, then your time that you're contagious is cut in half, yeah?

All of that means that you're far far less likely to spread the virus to other people if you're vaccinated, because you're less likely to contract it, and if you do the milder symptoms and shorter window means you're still less likely to spread the virus.

If you're more likely to spread the virus, that means more people will get infected, meaning the virus is more likely to mutate and create new strains, which will in turn infect more people, right?  So you absolutely are killing people by refusing to get vaccinated if you're fully able to be vaccinated, because they have been shown to be extremely safe.

Expand Quote

I’ve already had covid and recovered and it was an incredibly mild experience. Some sniffling, a bit of sore throat and lethargy for two weeks, and that was it...

...I have never seen anything pushed harder by the media, and the fact that Pfizer sponsors so many of the news programs gives me serious cause for concern.

[close]

My experience was the same except I also lost smell.  You and I are extremely lucky.  I have had friends who were perfectly healthy and wound up in the hospital on a ventilator.  It's a complete crapshoot how you'll react to the virus.

As for the media pushing the vaccine hard, it's because if we don't vaccinate then the virus will mutate and more people will die.  That's how Delta and Omicron came about like I mentioned in PMs.  Vaccines have been pushed hard in the past, like inoculations for smallpox and the polio vaccine.  It's actually a pretty standard response for vaccines to be pushed hard during an epidemic/pandemic because they're the only way to truly deal with the illness.  This is just the first pandemic of this scale to exist in a society where media is so prevalent.

Expand Quote

Anyway we're at a point now where at least the anti-vax crowd can get some pills or infusions or whatever should they end up getting really sick.

[close]

I think this is a really bad take, because without being vaccinated they are still more likely to spread it and lead to mutations that could be harder to defend against or could be less survivable.  People who can get vaccinated still should.

The risk is not the same and I was not implying that.  I am someone who takes covid, social distancing and wearing a mask very seriously. I think a lot of people are behaving carelessly now that there is a vaccine and the only people I know who have gotten covid (in the past few months) are vaccinated people who go out and act as though they are completely immune.   I appreciate your response and the numbers breakdown you included.  Can you link where you got that information from?

Also the media is pushing the vaccine so hard because they are literally paid by the vaccine companies. 

[T-Funke]

Can you link some sources for all the numbers in that post? Thanks!

My understanding is that the omicron variant was first discovered in vaccinated individuals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BWGovernment/status/1463874240130785280

The Presidential COVID-19 Task Force informs the public that four (4) cases of a new COVID-19 variant now known as B.1.1.529, were reported and recorded on Monday 22nd November 2021. The four (4) cases were detected among travellers who tested SARS-COV-2 positive on routine pre travel testing. The variant tests were carried out as part of the routine genomic surveillance of SARS-COV-2 as prescribed in our COVID-19 response plan.

The preliminary report revealed that all four had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. As part of the continuing investigations into the virus to establish and contain its local transmissions, contact racing has revealed close contacts who are currently awaiting their results and the public will be informed regarding the outcome of the exercise.

You can only spread the virus if you actually get sick

Fauci has said the opposite

[Loki700]

The risk is not the same and I was not implying that.  I am someone who takes covid, social distancing and wearing a mask very seriously. I think a lot of people are behaving carelessly now that there is a vaccine and the only people I know who have gotten covid (in the past few months) are vaccinated people who go out and act as though they are completely immune.   I appreciate your response and the numbers breakdown you included.  Can you link where you got that information from?

Also the media is pushing the vaccine so hard because they are literally paid by the vaccine companies.

I apologize for assuming that you were implying that.  I'm used to people doing such when saying you can still spread it with the vaccine, because that's true of every vaccine and it's usually meant to be misleading.

I got the information from the CDC for the hard numbers on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.  I took snapshot figures whereas the CDC seems to have done an average for the month to get their comparisons.

As far as the length of infections, that was from memory, but Influenza gives a good indication of what typical values for illnesses are, where you tend to be sick for around 2 weeks and contagious for about 1.  For info on the increased viral load decline and and thus reduced length of illness, The Lancet has a good summary of the data. It also highlights how vaccinated people don't transmit the virus as easily, much like this study from the UK.  Another study also shows that vaccinated people stop shedding the virus sooner, and the particles shed are less infectious.NYC Health likewise highlights that 96% of cases of Covid have been among unvaccinated people, showing that vaccinated people are still far less likely to transmit the virus, and thus the vaccine has been very effective.

Can you link some sources for all the numbers in that post? Thanks!

My understanding is that the omicron variant was first discovered in vaccinated individuals.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BWGovernment/status/1463874240130785280

Expand Quote

The Presidential COVID-19 Task Force informs the public that four (4) cases of a new COVID-19 variant now known as B.1.1.529, were reported and recorded on Monday 22nd November 2021. The four (4) cases were detected among travellers who tested SARS-COV-2 positive on routine pre travel testing. The variant tests were carried out as part of the routine genomic surveillance of SARS-COV-2 as prescribed in our COVID-19 response plan.

The preliminary report revealed that all four had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. As part of the continuing investigations into the virus to establish and contain its local transmissions, contact racing has revealed close contacts who are currently awaiting their results and the public will be informed regarding the outcome of the exercise.

[close]

Yes, it was discovered in vaccinated people.  That does not mean it originated from unvaccinated people.  The reason they were able to be infected in the first place is because it was such a different variant.  Luckily research is suggesting that the vaccine isn't completely sidestepped by Omicron much like it wasn't by Delta, it just means the vaccine isn't as effective against those strains, and we'll need boosters that target those strains.

To actually mutate to that point though, it needs to be transmitted many times.  That's why these variants have cropped up in areas with low vaccination rates, because it's easier for the virus to transmit, and the more times it's transmitted the more opportunities for mutation there are.  Those multiple mutations are what creates a new strain.

Expand Quote

You can only spread the virus if you actually get sick

[close]

Fauci has said the opposite

I apologize, I wasn't clear in my language.  When I said "get sick", I meant to say "contract the virus", meaning it has actually infected you, not that you are symptomatic.  That's what he's saying in that video.  As for the ability to infect other people, as I pointed out above in my response to Jeremy, it's far lower for vaccinated people due to a shorter infection period, lower number of shed particles, and less potent particles.

To try to make it more clear, because I have a habit of not being as clear as I intend, let's say boy A and boy B are both vaccinated and are exposed to the virus.  Neither of them show any symptoms, but boy A "gets sick", however boy B does not and the vaccine/antibodies have successfully prevented him from getting infected.

If both of these boys were to get tested for Covid, boy A would return a positive result and boy B would return a negative result even though neither show symptoms.  Boy A is what I meant by "gets sick", however as shown in the above links, he would have an even lower chance of transmitting the virus than another vaccinated person who contracted the virus but was symptomatic.

[Decreed Bratton]

Expand Quote

why can't anyone who is pro vaccine admit the vaccine isn't as effective as originally promised?  That right now being unvaccinated I can still get and spread covid but that would remain the same if I was vaccinated.

[close]

This is just patently false, or at least disingenuous because you're implying that the risk is the same.

In August, 0.88% of unvaccinated people contracted Covid, while 0.13% of vaccinated people contracted Covid which shows 85% efficacy.  People who were unvaccinated were 6.8 times as likely to contract Covid.  Even going with the most recent numbers from October of 0.45% and 0.09%, that's still 5 times as likely and 80% efficacy.

Why don't we look at deaths too?  In August, 0.018% of unvaccinated people who got Covid died, while only 0.001% of vaccinated people who got Covid died, meaning that your risk of dying was 18 times higher, and funnily enough that shows a 95% efficacy.  Most recent numbers?  0.007% and 0.0006%, meaning a 9 times higher risk and an efficacy of 93%.

You can only spread the virus if you actually get sick, so a lower likelihood of getting sick means you're less likely to spread the virus, yeah?  Also, you can only spread the virus for about half the time you're sick, yeah?  So if you have less severe symptoms, you're less likely to cough to spread it, and if your time that you're sick is cut in half, which is the current trend, then your time that you're contagious is cut in half, yeah?

All of that means that you're far far less likely to spread the virus to other people if you're vaccinated, because you're less likely to contract it, and if you do the milder symptoms and shorter window means you're still less likely to spread the virus.

If you're more likely to spread the virus, that means more people will get infected, meaning the virus is more likely to mutate and create new strains, which will in turn infect more people, right?  So you absolutely are killing people by refusing to get vaccinated if you're fully able to be vaccinated, because they have been shown to be extremely safe.

Expand Quote

I’ve already had covid and recovered and it was an incredibly mild experience. Some sniffling, a bit of sore throat and lethargy for two weeks, and that was it...

...I have never seen anything pushed harder by the media, and the fact that Pfizer sponsors so many of the news programs gives me serious cause for concern.

[close]

My experience was the same except I also lost smell.  You and I are extremely lucky.  I have had friends who were perfectly healthy and wound up in the hospital on a ventilator.  It's a complete crapshoot how you'll react to the virus.

As for the media pushing the vaccine hard, it's because if we don't vaccinate then the virus will mutate and more people will die.  That's how Delta and Omicron came about like I mentioned in PMs.  Vaccines have been pushed hard in the past, like inoculations for smallpox and the polio vaccine.  It's actually a pretty standard response for vaccines to be pushed hard during an epidemic/pandemic because they're the only way to truly deal with the illness.  This is just the first pandemic of this scale to exist in a society where media is so prevalent.

Expand Quote

Anyway we're at a point now where at least the anti-vax crowd can get some pills or infusions or whatever should they end up getting really sick.

[close]

I think this is a really bad take, because without being vaccinated they are still more likely to spread it and lead to mutations that could be harder to defend against or could be less survivable.  People who can get vaccinated still should.

By reading your posts Loki, I can tell you are someone who has spent a lot of time researching the subject.  Props to you. Many people want to take a piece of data and cherry pick to suit their agenda (on either side of the coin).  You need to spend hours upon hours researching and not just take something you read or seen for what it is.

When it comes to people saying the effectivity of the vaccine is dropping, you have to ask against what?  Is it against infection or severe disease and death?  These virologist talk about it and why the messaging from the beginning was wrong and which case people like Jeremey tend to think that way. Staring from about 7:45.



They would also tell you that we aren't 100% sure vaccinated people can transmit.  Most studies are epidemiological which study social behaviors and they have to be taken with a grain of salt.  Example is that a husband and wife (both vaxxed) living together and the man gets infected first and then his wife tests positive a few days later.  You can't say the husband 100% transmitted it to the woman.  They could have gone out together somewhere, got exposed at the same time and the incubation periods for them were different.  Real studies need to be done in labs where they haven't been done properly yet.

There was, however,  a study out of Singapore of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals who got infected in which they took PCR tests of both of them daily.  In vaxxed people the rna loads went down a significantly quicker than unvaxxed.  So that in itself should tell us something .  There still could be a chance vaxxed people can transmit, but still less then unvaxxed.  It is also worth noting that PCR tests check for rna which means it doesn't check to see if the virus is actually active or not. 

[T-Funke]

So if omicron has only been found in vaccinated so far, how can a claim be made that unvaccinated caused the variant? I don’t understand that.

My reading on Fauci saying that vaccinated have as much virus in their nasopharynx as unvaccinated would support Jeremy’s opinion that both are equally able to spread covid.

[Loki700]

(A lot of nice words, good points, and a good source)

Thanks man, it’s partially due to my being an engineer and having a large part of my work be experimental validation, and even more due to my wife having a PhD in biochemistry.  She’s helped me make sense of a lot of this because biology and chemistry have always been areas I’m weak in.

So if omicron has only been found in vaccinated so far, how can a claim be made that unvaccinated caused the variant? I don’t understand that.

You’ve misunderstood, it hasn’t only been found in vaccinated people, that is just the first place it was found.  That’s a bit like saying if AIDS was first found in 4 people that had tattoos, that tattoos caused it or only people with tattoos could get it.  Omicron existed before those 4 people were infected, and has been found in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people since.

To understand how unvaccinated people led to omicron, I’ll try to briefly explain evolution.  I’ll likely get some details slightly wrong, but the overall idea will be there.

Replicating DNA/RNA is hard and is usually not done perfectly.  As such, every time that replication happens, so conception/birth of a human, or transmission of a virus, there is potential for the errors in replicating DNA/RNA to cause mutations.  The more replications (generations), the more mutations happen.  This is how evolution takes place, by the accumulation of these mutations.

Now the shorter the life span of an organism, the more replications take place, the more mutations happen.  This is a bit of an oversimplification, but since viruses have a short life, they have a lot of replications compared to humans.  They also rely on our cells to reproduce, which makes mutation even more likely, and means they can change that much quicker.

Now the reason this is important is because the more times a virus is transmitted, the more it mutates.  This causes variants.  With the previous studies I linked to, which I suggest you read, it is clear that transmission of far more likely to happen among unvaccinated people than vaccinated people.

Basically if you took the same virus and introduced it to a population that was vaccinated and a population that was unvaccinated, then came back in a month, the virus among the unvaccinated population would be vastly more mutated than the virus among the vaccinated population because it will have been transmitted many more times.  That means that the virus in the vaccinated group would be very close to the original virus, but the one from the unvaccinated group would be different, and would be a variant.

That is how Delta and Omicron formed, by Covid infecting populations that had a very low vaccination rate, so it was transmitted a lot.

My reading on Fauci saying that vaccinated have as much virus in their nasopharynx as unvaccinated would support Jeremy’s opinion that both are equally able to spread covid.

There was one study that showed that the viral loads when first infected were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and this is what Fauci was referencing.

However, as the links I posted previously show, the viral load in vaccinated people drops far quicker than it does in unvaccinated people.  This means that vaccinated people are infected, and thus contagious, for a far shorter period of time than unvaccinated people.  That’s key, because if you see 10 people per day, and your infection lasts for 7 days less than an unvaccinated person, that’s 70 chances to transmit the virus that don’t exist.  So that alone means that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus.

However, the other links also showed that vaccinated people shed fewer infectious particles than unvaccinated people, and the particles they do shed are less infectious.

All of this combines to make the chance of transmission far far lower for vaccinated people than unvaccinated people.  This is actually pretty normal for vaccines.

[T-Funke]

Thanks Loki, that info on virus replication and mutation is helpful for understanding what’s going on.

I still have some issues with the conclusion that unvaccinated populations are definitively the source of the mutants.

If mutations can occur in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and vaccinated can spread the virus but are more likely to be asymptomatic, couldn’t we also make an assumption that their behavior would lead them to be less cautious than a unvaccinated individual who is symptomatic, and hence be more likely to spread it despite being contagious for a smaller window of time?

Additionally, it appears that Omicron was circulating in European countries with high vaccination rates before the discovery of this variant in South Africa.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/01/world/coronavirus-newsletter-intl-01-12-21/index.html

Dutch health officials said Tuesday that Omicron was present in the Netherlands a week before two flights arrived from South Africa carrying the virus.

Nine cases of Omicron were linked to a private event on November 20 in Scotland, days before South Africa announced the existence of the variant. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told Scottish Parliament Tuesday that none of the individuals had a recent travel history or known links to others who had traveled from southern Africa.

My other big question would be about antibody dependent enhancement.

Fauci talked about this last year (3:05-3:48 in the clip).

Something that I want to make sure the American public understand. It's not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, or an allergic reaction, or pain. There's safety associated; does the vaccine make you worse? And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you're trying to protect them with and you actually enhance the infection. You can get a good feel for that in animal models. So that's going to be interspersed at the same time that we're testing. We're going to try to make sure we don't have enhancement. It's the worst possible thing you could do, is vaccinate somebody to prevent infection and actually make them worse.

This also seems to be addressed on the nih website
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Results of the study

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

To my layperson understanding, the fact that so many states and countries with very high vaccination rates are also experiencing some of the highest case numbers would line up with antibody dependent enhancement. Anecdotally, I have a number of friends who got covid immediately following their vaccination.

[edit to fix YouTube embed issue, apparently it requires a full “http://www” in the url]