10-06-2021, 02:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2021, 02:39 PM by luka_skywalker_77.)
In response to Jam:
I think you would agree that not everyone needs the vaccine. If you've had covid, you have an immunity and more than proper to assume you do not need the vaccine, which is why I stated 100% vaccination is pointless since there is no need to vaccinate someone that no longer needs it.
But, if you risk factors change, given your personal circumstances, then by all means consider vaccination as I have. Moreover, the purpose of this vaccination campaign, has changed quite a bit over the past year and it's clear that mitigating serious illness is the goal for now. I think we can agree on that.
Point #1: Of course it's not the common flu. For reference, flu shots have both good and bad effects in people, which is why a great deal of folks do not take them. That much we both know. Flu shots are also very ineffective in cold/flu mitigation (roughly 29-40% over the past 5 years) but it does reduce the risk of death however in high risk people. The current database of vaccine side effects is over 600k and most are logged. Do they outweigh the benefits? I'm sure there are quite a few that will beg to differ. But they aren't completely safe. Relatively, but not completely. And we still have no idea how this will affect people long term, despite how adamantly scientist suggest no possibility of harm.
The current vaccine is a therapeutic/prophylactic. For definition: "A therapeutic vaccine is a vaccine which is administered after a disease or infection has already occurred. A therapeutic vaccine works by activating the immune system of a patient to fight an infection. Like prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines aim to teach the immune system how to destroy a pathogen or other disease-causing entity (e.g. cancer cells), by introducing an antigen associated with it. But rather than training it against new pathogens, the goal of therapeutic vaccines is to persuade the immune system to fight harder against an existing illness."
This isn't misinformation. Understanding exactly what the vaccine is and how it functions is what was missing from the discourse over the past year and a half. This is why i call it what i call it. It's also why the definition was amended to fit this view (more on that later).
Point #2: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2074 "Adults who have been fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 can carry the same viral load of the delta variant as those who are unvaccinated, a preliminary analysis of UK data suggests."
https://indiaeducationdiary.in/universit...ed-people/ "Anew study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center and UC San Francisco shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms."
Both groups carry the same viral load (more than likely not more, but there were some reporting of that earlier in the year).
Point #3: There is no data to suggest or intimate that vaccination helps against transmission or infection. The metrics you provided are post infection, nor pre infection.
Moreover, "[The] Vaccines are designed to prevent serious illness, not to prevent infection or prevent any symptoms,” Dr. Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said during a briefing Wednesday." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/16/booster-...ptoms.html. Those responses are discovered in the animal trails to my knowledge.
Point #-: We know very little about the immune systems' exceptional response to pathogens and other environmental changes like covid, but we have learned quite a lot in a short span of time. We may know what happens in some instances, but not why and exactly how (which is why it's very difficult to understand why each person responds to the infection differently).
Sure we know quite a bit but crafting an immune response can be very dangerous. ADE is a strong possibility here as discussed previously. Cultivating a consistent immune response rather than a unique one in a large population of people is inherently dangerous. And from what i've read, this is exactly what we are doing--we are teaching everyone's immune systems to respond in a specific way, to a specific spike protein. There have been instances of adverse reactions to the crafted response that has seen the spike proteins roaming to different parts of the body and "flipping on switches". Furthermore this is a process that essentially provides a key to a persons defenses. For example:
"However, recent reports have raised some skepticism as to the biologic actions of the spike protein and the types of antibodies produced. One paper reported that certain antibodies in the blood of infected patients appear to change the shape of the spike protein so as to make it more likely to bind to cells, while other papers showed that the spike protein by itself (without being part of the corona virus) can damage endothelial cells and disrupt the blood-brain barrier. These findings may be even more relevant to the pathogenesis of long-COVID syndrome that may affect as many as 50% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2. In COVID-19, a response to oxidative stress is required by increasing anti-oxidant enzymes."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/
... or Merek's disease.
Point #5: 1 booster will be required--It's already in discussion. Additional boosters will probably be added since the vaccines efficacy wanes after 6-7 months. So, 1 will be the absolute minimum unless another treatment is found along the way. Suggesting that it's under debate is really being somewhat oblivious to the entire situation. Boosters are already underway in many parts of the world, and here as well. I mean there's really no point in taking a 6 month vaccine without boosting it for the other 6 months.
Point #6: from what i understand, vaccine induced immunity is very specific/incomplete. Meaning, immunity from a natural infection is far more robust since it is building its response against the entirety of the virus and not simply the spike protein. In a way, you could say a proper response means the body is armed to respond to all intruders that look like covid 19--not the one in a wig and a mask if you get the metaphor. There is an Israel study that outlines this and quite a few other US studies that confirm it.
Now the issue obviously, is that you have to take the risk of infection to gain the immunity but that risk must be weighed personally based on your demographic data. The reward of course is a lasting immunity, better than a vaccine, but it's your risk to make. Natural isn't always good, but in this case, it is. You have to make that call.
Point #7: The vaccinated pose the same threat to the unvaccinated as the unvaccinated to the vaccinated. The difference, is that one has accepted a possible covid infection due to their own understanding of it or from being previously infected and, there's a greater then good possibility that any issues to have might be lessened. If they don't have it by now, it's by choice. Any reasoning outside of that infers a responsibility to someone else to take a substance to theoretically protect someone else. Either way, it's not right nor is it necessary or required for me to protect you by undergoing a medical procedure. If you're out and about, you assume those risks willingly or unwillingly. No one is obliged to protect you.
Point #8: Breakthrough cases were coined at a time when the public believed the vaccine provided immunity to infection, but we know that was misinformation. The vaccine was never designed to do such a thing--it was for prophylactic/therapeutic purposes. The "science didn't change"--it was always that way.
Point #9: Agreed 100% will never happen and people should make up their own minds. At least in the US, we have the latitude to do this--not too sure about Germany but history may have already answered that question (sarc.). People reserve the right to fully understand and undertake any measure appropriate to protect themselves from harm, which includes the uptake of a vaccine. Calling it teenage rebellion is disrespect to the individual in general. Not doing what you want them to do is the freedom they exhibit in a few society and it's not a requirement for you to agree with it.
Regarding the 100%
"The country [Israel] jumped out ahead of all other countries on vaccines, and 78% of eligible Israelis over 12 years old are vaccinated. But Israel has a young population, with many under the eligible age for vaccination, and about 1.1 million eligible Israelis, largely between the ages of 12 and 20, have declined to take even one dose of the vaccine. That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated..."
The reference is to total eligible people, not kids and others (that do not need the vaccine). Same with the US. And i believe they are on a 4th booster.
Point #10:
before 9/1/21
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
after 9/1/21
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Probably nothing major, but still. Perhaps that goes in tandem with their "realization" that the vaccines where far more prophylactic than they realized.
Point #11: Masks do very little as a whole against covid, but are somewhat effective with perfect usage, replacement, and type. The right masks, work for those symptomatic people. Also: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical...ar-AANfurl.
There are plenty of scientists on both sides of this equation but literally no places on earth where they actually work in practice for covid 19. In a test setting with all measures accounted for? Sure. But not at the local supermarket. And since the evidence for asymptomatic spread is scanty, you're essentially talking about logically masking symptomatic people that should more than often stay home. You may prove it in a lab, but real world metrics suggest that it doesn't work in actual practice.
Point #15: Expense isn't an issue. The restriction on Monoclonals is strictly political, which is why they were restricted in states along party lines (states with very high vaccination rates I might add).
Point #16: The death rate is very different from an IFR (which is a better indicator). This puts the rate at a fraction of all cases (hospitalized and otherwise). Measuring cases against deaths doesn't prove anything other than its effect against certain strata and not populations as a whole. Of the 700k, 95% were over the age of 50 (with side issues) and should consider vaccination, obviously. There's more than just the numbers when it comes to that. Most statisticians stopped used death rate a year ago for this reason. We have a vaccine this year and the same number of people have died in 2021 that died in 2020: 350k+.
Point #17: I don't get your point here. Everyone will catch covid at some point. But the research regarding long covid and other related issues isn't even remotely tangible enough to suggest undergoing a vaccine to mitigate them. Especially without long term data. I'm not calling it fear mongering, but there will be associated risks for everything in life, including infection and disease.
Point #18: The flu is far more deadly to a child than covid ever is/was. I'm not sure I need to say more about that.
That being said, there's a flip side to what you're saying in many respects. Science isn't settled and science is being censored and although I do not have your qualifications, i can only lean on those that can have this conversation with you, to do the talking for me. I'd rather that trove of information not reside only in a handful of individuals with life experience in biology. The good thing though, is there are thousands of biologists (ethically speaking) that are contradictory and honest in their approaches because being so isn't a given.
My assertion is: we know a LOT. Problem is we're choosing to drive a four lane highway using only one lane.
I think you would agree that not everyone needs the vaccine. If you've had covid, you have an immunity and more than proper to assume you do not need the vaccine, which is why I stated 100% vaccination is pointless since there is no need to vaccinate someone that no longer needs it.
But, if you risk factors change, given your personal circumstances, then by all means consider vaccination as I have. Moreover, the purpose of this vaccination campaign, has changed quite a bit over the past year and it's clear that mitigating serious illness is the goal for now. I think we can agree on that.
Point #1: Of course it's not the common flu. For reference, flu shots have both good and bad effects in people, which is why a great deal of folks do not take them. That much we both know. Flu shots are also very ineffective in cold/flu mitigation (roughly 29-40% over the past 5 years) but it does reduce the risk of death however in high risk people. The current database of vaccine side effects is over 600k and most are logged. Do they outweigh the benefits? I'm sure there are quite a few that will beg to differ. But they aren't completely safe. Relatively, but not completely. And we still have no idea how this will affect people long term, despite how adamantly scientist suggest no possibility of harm.
The current vaccine is a therapeutic/prophylactic. For definition: "A therapeutic vaccine is a vaccine which is administered after a disease or infection has already occurred. A therapeutic vaccine works by activating the immune system of a patient to fight an infection. Like prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines aim to teach the immune system how to destroy a pathogen or other disease-causing entity (e.g. cancer cells), by introducing an antigen associated with it. But rather than training it against new pathogens, the goal of therapeutic vaccines is to persuade the immune system to fight harder against an existing illness."
This isn't misinformation. Understanding exactly what the vaccine is and how it functions is what was missing from the discourse over the past year and a half. This is why i call it what i call it. It's also why the definition was amended to fit this view (more on that later).
Point #2: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2074 "Adults who have been fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 can carry the same viral load of the delta variant as those who are unvaccinated, a preliminary analysis of UK data suggests."
https://indiaeducationdiary.in/universit...ed-people/ "Anew study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center and UC San Francisco shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms."
Both groups carry the same viral load (more than likely not more, but there were some reporting of that earlier in the year).
Point #3: There is no data to suggest or intimate that vaccination helps against transmission or infection. The metrics you provided are post infection, nor pre infection.
Moreover, "[The] Vaccines are designed to prevent serious illness, not to prevent infection or prevent any symptoms,” Dr. Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said during a briefing Wednesday." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/16/booster-...ptoms.html. Those responses are discovered in the animal trails to my knowledge.
Point #-: We know very little about the immune systems' exceptional response to pathogens and other environmental changes like covid, but we have learned quite a lot in a short span of time. We may know what happens in some instances, but not why and exactly how (which is why it's very difficult to understand why each person responds to the infection differently).
Sure we know quite a bit but crafting an immune response can be very dangerous. ADE is a strong possibility here as discussed previously. Cultivating a consistent immune response rather than a unique one in a large population of people is inherently dangerous. And from what i've read, this is exactly what we are doing--we are teaching everyone's immune systems to respond in a specific way, to a specific spike protein. There have been instances of adverse reactions to the crafted response that has seen the spike proteins roaming to different parts of the body and "flipping on switches". Furthermore this is a process that essentially provides a key to a persons defenses. For example:
"However, recent reports have raised some skepticism as to the biologic actions of the spike protein and the types of antibodies produced. One paper reported that certain antibodies in the blood of infected patients appear to change the shape of the spike protein so as to make it more likely to bind to cells, while other papers showed that the spike protein by itself (without being part of the corona virus) can damage endothelial cells and disrupt the blood-brain barrier. These findings may be even more relevant to the pathogenesis of long-COVID syndrome that may affect as many as 50% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2. In COVID-19, a response to oxidative stress is required by increasing anti-oxidant enzymes."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/
... or Merek's disease.
Point #5: 1 booster will be required--It's already in discussion. Additional boosters will probably be added since the vaccines efficacy wanes after 6-7 months. So, 1 will be the absolute minimum unless another treatment is found along the way. Suggesting that it's under debate is really being somewhat oblivious to the entire situation. Boosters are already underway in many parts of the world, and here as well. I mean there's really no point in taking a 6 month vaccine without boosting it for the other 6 months.
Point #6: from what i understand, vaccine induced immunity is very specific/incomplete. Meaning, immunity from a natural infection is far more robust since it is building its response against the entirety of the virus and not simply the spike protein. In a way, you could say a proper response means the body is armed to respond to all intruders that look like covid 19--not the one in a wig and a mask if you get the metaphor. There is an Israel study that outlines this and quite a few other US studies that confirm it.
Now the issue obviously, is that you have to take the risk of infection to gain the immunity but that risk must be weighed personally based on your demographic data. The reward of course is a lasting immunity, better than a vaccine, but it's your risk to make. Natural isn't always good, but in this case, it is. You have to make that call.
Point #7: The vaccinated pose the same threat to the unvaccinated as the unvaccinated to the vaccinated. The difference, is that one has accepted a possible covid infection due to their own understanding of it or from being previously infected and, there's a greater then good possibility that any issues to have might be lessened. If they don't have it by now, it's by choice. Any reasoning outside of that infers a responsibility to someone else to take a substance to theoretically protect someone else. Either way, it's not right nor is it necessary or required for me to protect you by undergoing a medical procedure. If you're out and about, you assume those risks willingly or unwillingly. No one is obliged to protect you.
Point #8: Breakthrough cases were coined at a time when the public believed the vaccine provided immunity to infection, but we know that was misinformation. The vaccine was never designed to do such a thing--it was for prophylactic/therapeutic purposes. The "science didn't change"--it was always that way.
Point #9: Agreed 100% will never happen and people should make up their own minds. At least in the US, we have the latitude to do this--not too sure about Germany but history may have already answered that question (sarc.). People reserve the right to fully understand and undertake any measure appropriate to protect themselves from harm, which includes the uptake of a vaccine. Calling it teenage rebellion is disrespect to the individual in general. Not doing what you want them to do is the freedom they exhibit in a few society and it's not a requirement for you to agree with it.
Regarding the 100%
"The country [Israel] jumped out ahead of all other countries on vaccines, and 78% of eligible Israelis over 12 years old are vaccinated. But Israel has a young population, with many under the eligible age for vaccination, and about 1.1 million eligible Israelis, largely between the ages of 12 and 20, have declined to take even one dose of the vaccine. That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated..."
The reference is to total eligible people, not kids and others (that do not need the vaccine). Same with the US. And i believe they are on a 4th booster.
Point #10:
before 9/1/21
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
after 9/1/21
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
Probably nothing major, but still. Perhaps that goes in tandem with their "realization" that the vaccines where far more prophylactic than they realized.
Point #11: Masks do very little as a whole against covid, but are somewhat effective with perfect usage, replacement, and type. The right masks, work for those symptomatic people. Also: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical...ar-AANfurl.
There are plenty of scientists on both sides of this equation but literally no places on earth where they actually work in practice for covid 19. In a test setting with all measures accounted for? Sure. But not at the local supermarket. And since the evidence for asymptomatic spread is scanty, you're essentially talking about logically masking symptomatic people that should more than often stay home. You may prove it in a lab, but real world metrics suggest that it doesn't work in actual practice.
Point #15: Expense isn't an issue. The restriction on Monoclonals is strictly political, which is why they were restricted in states along party lines (states with very high vaccination rates I might add).
Point #16: The death rate is very different from an IFR (which is a better indicator). This puts the rate at a fraction of all cases (hospitalized and otherwise). Measuring cases against deaths doesn't prove anything other than its effect against certain strata and not populations as a whole. Of the 700k, 95% were over the age of 50 (with side issues) and should consider vaccination, obviously. There's more than just the numbers when it comes to that. Most statisticians stopped used death rate a year ago for this reason. We have a vaccine this year and the same number of people have died in 2021 that died in 2020: 350k+.
Point #17: I don't get your point here. Everyone will catch covid at some point. But the research regarding long covid and other related issues isn't even remotely tangible enough to suggest undergoing a vaccine to mitigate them. Especially without long term data. I'm not calling it fear mongering, but there will be associated risks for everything in life, including infection and disease.
Point #18: The flu is far more deadly to a child than covid ever is/was. I'm not sure I need to say more about that.
That being said, there's a flip side to what you're saying in many respects. Science isn't settled and science is being censored and although I do not have your qualifications, i can only lean on those that can have this conversation with you, to do the talking for me. I'd rather that trove of information not reside only in a handful of individuals with life experience in biology. The good thing though, is there are thousands of biologists (ethically speaking) that are contradictory and honest in their approaches because being so isn't a given.
My assertion is: we know a LOT. Problem is we're choosing to drive a four lane highway using only one lane.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)