Vaccine or not?

Are we willing to change the acceptable side effect threshold for all or part of the approval process? What would the new recommendation be: 0.75%? 0.5%? Would that change be retroactive to all currently approved vaccines and medications?
 
Are we willing to change the acceptable side effect threshold for all or part of the approval process? What would the new recommendation be: 0.75%? 0.5%? Would that change be retroactive to all currently approved vaccines and medications?

I believe most people are willing to accept a small chance for potential side effects to any medication. There are warnings on a bottle of ibuprofen. We are always making some risk
assessment when we take a medication: We trading some level of risk for the potential of some level of benefit.

I believe most people who have issues with the vaccines because both of those are unknown. And yet many people are having their arms twisted to accept the unknown risk for the unknown benefit. Maybe we’ll know more in a year or two…like if the vaccines went through their normal trials.

I think it’s a huge issue. Some people believe the unknown risk is worth the currently estimated benefit. That’s great…get the vaccine.

Others want to sit it out and wait until more is known. Those people should not be punished.
 
I believe most people are willing to accept a small chance for potential side effects to any medication. There are warnings on a bottle of ibuprofen. We are always making some risk
assessment when we take a medication: We trading some level of risk for the potential of some level of benefit.

I believe most people who have issues with the vaccines because both of those are unknown. And yet many people are having their arms twisted to accept the unknown risk for the unknown benefit. Maybe we’ll know more in a year or two…like if the vaccines went through their normal trials.

I think it’s a huge issue. Some people believe the unknown risk is worth the currently estimated benefit. That’s great…get the vaccine.

Others want to sit it out and wait until more is known. Those people should not be punished.

I agree with you. It should be an individual's choice.

I have made my position known previously regarding the current veracity of VAERS. Even if every single adverse reaction logged were legitimate (including divorce, lost poker games, sudden onset baldness), we're still looking at a reaction threshold much lower than 1%. Double what's in VAERS and we're still below 1%.

I know what it's like to be a medical statistic. It's not fun. But the p value threshold still holds.
 
I believe most people are willing to accept a small chance for potential side effects to any medication. There are warnings on a bottle of ibuprofen. We are always making some risk
assessment when we take a medication: We trading some level of risk for the potential of some level of benefit.

I believe most people who have issues with the vaccines because both of those are unknown. And yet many people are having their arms twisted to accept the unknown risk for the unknown benefit. Maybe we’ll know more in a year or two…like if the vaccines went through their normal trials.

I think it’s a huge issue. Some people believe the unknown risk is worth the currently estimated benefit. That’s great…get the vaccine.

Others want to sit it out and wait until more is known. Those people should not be punished.
This is 100% it. It is a risk assessment. I know fairly well what my risk is from getting COVID based on almost two years of data. I do not know very well what my risks are from the vaccine- though I have a lot of concerns based on what I am seeing happen to other people in my age group. To me, it looks a lot like the risk of getting the vaccine far outweighs the risk I'd have from the actual illness (even if all the overall risks are fairly small). Then when you factor in that I am not saving anyone's life if I do get it (as I could still spread the illness, despite what all the initial propaganda tried to push) it makes literally zero sense for me to get it.
 
This is 100% it. It is a risk assessment. I know fairly well what my risk is from getting COVID based on almost two years of data. I do not know very well what my risks are from the vaccine- though I have a lot of concerns based on what I am seeing happen to other people in my age group. To me, it looks a lot like the risk of getting the vaccine far outweighs the risk I'd have from the actual illness (even if all the overall risks are fairly small). Then when you factor in that I am not saving anyone's life if I do get it (as I could still spread the illness, despite what all the initial propaganda tried to push) it makes literally zero sense for me to get it.
You people are not smart enough for that. You have to let the bureaucrats make the decision for you.
 
I agree with you. It should be an individual's choice.

I have made my position known previously regarding the current veracity of VAERS. Even if every single adverse reaction logged were legitimate (including divorce, lost poker games, sudden onset baldness), we're still looking at a reaction threshold much lower than 1%. Double what's in VAERS and we're still below 1%.

I know what it's like to be a medical statistic. It's not fun. But the p value threshold still holds.
The issue is that p value is already higher than what got pulled previously.

It's the same issue as Covid. The CFR is stupid low right now, less than 1%. But applied across millions that adds up. It's the exact same formula for the vaccines, even if it's just 1% of every american, assuming we all get vaxxed, that's more medical fallout than due to the disease itself.

We are given two risks within a percentage point of each other. We are told one risk is unacceptable, even though there is still a chance you wont even face that risk (only 1/5 have had covid). But the other risk is totally acceptable even though it's close to the other unacceptable risk, and we will make you take it, instead of letting you face those 1/5 odds.

The entire message with Covid, and the vaccines, has been broken from day one.
 
Supermarket Giant Strips Unvaccinated Employees Of Their Benefits

Kroger-covid-scaled-e1639502531453.jpg


Supermarket chain Kroger announced Tuesday it will eliminate paid emergency leave for unvaccinated employees who contract COVID-19 in addition to requiring some of them to pay a monthly $50 health insurance surcharge starting in 2022, according to a company memo.

The country’s largest supermarket chain, which employees roughly 465,000 workers, issued an internal company memo announcing the changes, which will start on Jan. 1, a company spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Kroger is tightening their COVID-19 related policies as U.S. businesses face uncertainty over President Joe Biden’s recent federal vaccination mandate.
 
Supermarket Giant Strips Unvaccinated Employees Of Their Benefits

Kroger-covid-scaled-e1639502531453.jpg


Supermarket chain Kroger announced Tuesday it will eliminate paid emergency leave for unvaccinated employees who contract COVID-19 in addition to requiring some of them to pay a monthly $50 health insurance surcharge starting in 2022, according to a company memo.

The country’s largest supermarket chain, which employees roughly 465,000 workers, issued an internal company memo announcing the changes, which will start on Jan. 1, a company spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Kroger is tightening their COVID-19 related policies as U.S. businesses face uncertainty over President Joe Biden’s recent federal vaccination mandate.
They going to make them use their own water fountain and eat their meals out back? I’ve seen this before somewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
Last edited:
Isn't this the time of year where we see an increase in hospitalizations anyway? Slips, falls, vehicle accidents, heart attacks, people trying to get in under the wire before their insurance resets? I'm pretty sure Decembers have been hectic months for hospitals for a long time.
 

VN Store



Back
Top