Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#91,101
#91,101
kiddiedoc said:
Let me clarify:

Suppose that, in 10-20 years, we find an increase of autoimmune conditions, malignancy, or infertility associated with CV19 vaccination in 0.1% of teenagers/adults aged 16-29 at the time of vaccination. That number is higher than the current mortality rate and known long-term sequelae.
Click to expand...
I've discussed this with my oldest daughter (23) who is a trauma nurse. The hospital she works for told the nurses if they didn't get vaccinated and was out of work due to covid, they would not be paid for their time off. I told her she shouldn't worry about about two weeks pay because the potential for issues in the future are more serious.....plus she's most likely already had covid
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and allvol123
#91,103
#91,103
Carl Pickens said:
I've discussed this with my oldest daughter (23) who is a trauma nurse. The hospital she works for told the nurses if they didn't get vaccinated and was out of work due to covid, they would not be paid for their time off. I told her she shouldn't worry about about two weeks pay because the potential for issues in the future are more serious.....plus she's most likely already had covid
Click to expand...

You've raised a very pertinent issue and it's more of an issue with smaller employers. For example, a small dental office who has one hygienist. If she gets sick then you'll have to cancel two weeks of cleanings. At the very least it's a huge inconvenience and at worst costly. I can sympathize with businesses that pressure their employees to get the vaccine
 
#91,104
#91,104
LouderVol said:
So when dealing with two unknowns, and the option of avoiding either; the "science" says go with one of the unknowns?

I love how science works for you guys.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the condom or abortion thingy.... Avoidance is not in the lexicon.
 
#91,110
#91,110
LouderVol said:
I have seen a lot of "mights" and "what could happen" but not hard numbers. Hard numbers that I would expect for science.
Click to expand...
Hard numbers take time. How do you expect “hard numbers” on long term side effects if there hasn’t been a long term yet?

What we DO have is information about similar pathogens as well as similar vaccines (besides the mRNA technology since its new technology, although the perceived level of risk with mRNA technology is lower due to not using some form of a virus to deliver immunity).
 
#91,113
#91,113
UT_VOLS13 said:
CDC issues guidelines for COVID-19 vaccinated population
Click to expand...

It says:
That means fully vaccinated grandparents may visit unvaccinated healthy adult children and healthy grandchildren without masks or physical distancing. But the visit should be limited to one household: If the adult children’s unvaccinated neighbors drop by, the visit should move outdoors and everyone should wear masks and distance.
Click to expand...

So why is it safe to visit with unvaccinated people of your own family but not unvaccinated people who are not related to you? I'm not getting the difference in risk. So my parents can see my daughter when she's home over Spring break but they best not see their neighbor's daughter. Makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaybird_1981, 0nelilreb, BisonVol and 4 others
#91,114
#91,114
Sea Ray said:
It says:


So why is it safe to visit with unvaccinated people of your own family but not unvaccinated people who are not related to you? I'm not getting the difference in risk. So my parents can see my daughter when she's home over Spring break but they best not see their neighbor's daughter. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense.
 
#91,115
#91,115
OHvol40 said:
There’s a lot of information on the effects of viral infections as well as viral immunizations.
Click to expand...
Once again, that's the problem. The two vaccines in use are NOT "viral immunizations." They are mRNA vaccines, and we do not have any good long-term data on this type of immunization, as they are the first to receive widespread administration.

I've said all along that I would have been more comfortable taking a quickly-produced vaccine that used more familiar technology (like other viral immunizations that I administer every day).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#91,116
#91,116
OHvol40 said:
Hard numbers take time. How do you expect “hard numbers” on long term side effects if there hasn’t been a long term yet?

What we DO have is information about similar pathogens as well as similar vaccines (besides the mRNA technology since its new technology, although the perceived level of risk with mRNA technology is lower due to not using some form of a virus to deliver immunity).
Click to expand...
So no hard information for your basis of one being safer than the other. mRNA were the first two vaccines that came out.

When I first heard about it most of the existing mRNA vaccines were for otherwise untreatable diseases or cancer. So nothing lost getting vaccines with questions.
 
#91,117
#91,117
kiddiedoc said:
Once again, that's the problem. The two vaccines in use are NOT "viral immunizations." They are mRNA vaccines, and we do not have any good long-term data on this type of immunization, as they are the first to receive widespread administration.

I've said all along that I would have been more comfortable taking a quickly-produced vaccine that used more familiar technology (like other viral immunizations that I administer every day).
Click to expand...
I covered the mRNA stuff already in a subsequent post.
 
#91,118
#91,118
LouderVol said:
So no hard information for your basis of one being safer than the other. mRNA were the first two vaccines that came out.

When I first heard about it most of the existing mRNA vaccines were for otherwise untreatable diseases or cancer. So nothing lost getting vaccines with questions.
Click to expand...
Do you choose to ignore what I said or is it automatic?
 
#91,119
#91,119
OHvol40 said:
I covered the mRNA stuff already in a subsequent post.
Click to expand...
Great, thanks. Was posting quickly on a break between patients.

besides the mRNA technology since its new technology, although the perceived level of risk with mRNA technology is lower due to not using some form of a virus to deliver immunity]
Click to expand...

Another example of why we shouldn't rely on "perceived risk" in medicine: through clinical trials and upon introduction, the Rotashield vaccine appeared very safe. It wasn't until widespread administration that the adverse effect of intussusception was detected, which proved to be more dangerous in infants than the rotavirus infection, itself.

In conditions where the morbidity and mortality rates are high in a certain age/health demographic, it is ethical and often advisable to tolerate a certain amount of unknown risk with a novel treatment. See: trial protocols for advanced or difficult cancers, antiviral/steroid/plasma trials for hospitalized adults with CV19, etc.

However, the complication rate and mortality with the virus in young people are very low. I find it completely understandable that many people are not willing to accept the unknown risk, which could eventually prove to be equal to or higher than the risk from natural infection.
 
#91,121
#91,121
kiddiedoc said:
Great, thanks. Was posting quickly on a break between patients.



Another example of why we shouldn't rely on "perceived risk" in medicine: through clinical trials and upon introduction, the Rotashield vaccine appeared very safe. It wasn't until widespread administration that the adverse effect of intussusception was detected, which proved to be more dangerous in infants than the rotavirus infection, itself.

In conditions where the morbidity and mortality rates are high in a certain age/health demographic, it is ethical and often advisable to tolerate a certain amount of unknown risk with a novel treatment. See: trial protocols for advanced or difficult cancers, antiviral/steroid/plasma trials for hospitalized adults with CV19, etc.

However, the complication rate and mortality with the virus in young people are very low. I find it completely understandable that many people are not willing to accept the unknown risk, which could eventually prove to be equal to or higher than the risk from natural infection.
Click to expand...
If your advisory committee (American Academy of Pediatrics or whichever you belong to) pushed an official policy of inoculating children but you had reasonable reasons to reject the official policy (as you do with Covid vaccine), do you have the autonomy to do so without reprimand?

Same question regarding the Tennessee Board which oversees your license.
 
#91,122
#91,122
On a similar topic, every article on immunity from infection says there is not enough data. We have a full year of data, and reinfection looks insignificant. It's deflection, or the vaccine companies are writing all this. If they applied similar logic to the vaccines they'd never see the light of day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#91,123
#91,123
Weezy said:
On a similar topic, every article on immunity from infection says there is not enough data. We have a full year of data, and reinfection looks insignificant. It's deflection, or the vaccine companies are writing all this. If they applied similar logic to the vaccines they'd never see the light of day.
Click to expand...
@Septic mentioned a theory why the vaccination provides longer immunity than natural exposure. He was replying to my post questioning the rational from the 'experts at the CDC' who made the claim (it came from an earlier linked article). @kiddiedoc offered a rebuttal to the theory.
Point is, the health care consumer is left to sift through the information and make decisions. As of right now, the lines between verified science, marketing for pharmaceutical companies, and political control are very blurry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, hog88 and Rickyvol77
#91,124
#91,124
#91,125
#91,125
Carl Pickens said:
I've discussed this with my oldest daughter (23) who is a trauma nurse. The hospital she works for told the nurses if they didn't get vaccinated and was out of work due to covid, they would not be paid for their time off. I told her she shouldn't worry about about two weeks pay because the potential for issues in the future are more serious.....plus she's most likely already had covid
Click to expand...
They have already been doing similar things at some of the facilities I have worked over the flu vaccine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top