Vaccine or not?

#19,228
#19,228
#19,229
#19,229
BowlBrother85 said:
There were numerous caveats to that conclusion, which were detailed within that link you posted. The one sentence which you posted is a gross over-simplification of the information included in that article. Your conduct on this forum is highly unprofessional. In support of a tribal political agenda, you are misrepresenting research and framing an argument in opposition to vaccines based on deliberately misleading partial information. You are foul and disgusting.
Click to expand...
So, since the CDC MMWR release doesn't say what you want it to and clearly demonstrates that all of us who have called for the recognition of naturally-acquired immunity have been right all along, I'm unprofessional, foul, and disgusting? You do realize the sentence I quoted was directly from the abstract, yes?

A few more:

surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection. Importantly, infection-derived protection was greater after the highly transmissible Delta variant became predominant, coinciding with early declining of vaccine-induced immunity in many persons (5)
Click to expand...

As was observed in the present study after July, recent international studies have also demonstrated increased protection in persons with previous infection, with or without vaccination, relative to vaccination alone
Click to expand...

Also, would you mind explaining what my "tribal political agenda" is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#19,231
#19,231
newyorkvol said:
Like this??
Boosted Americans 97 times less likely to die of virus than unvaccinated; CDC predicts 75,000 more deaths by Feb. 26: Live COVID-19 updates - NewsBreak

“Those were the figures presented Wednesday by Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in the week ending Dec. 4. For every 100,000 people, 9.7 of those who were unvaccinated were killed by the coronavirus, compared to 0.7 of those fully vaccinated and 0.1 of the boosted.”

In other words, 99.9913% of unvaccinated won’t die, compared to 99.9993% of vaccinated and 99.9999% of boosted.

But yes, 9.7 is 97 times higher than 0.1.
Click to expand...
Your basic point, is that statistical data tells an incomplete picture without detailed and target-specific context. Even what you provided isn't very helpful. Of the 9.7% who were unvaccinated and died, what percentage was in a high-risk demographic? (over 70, obese, diabetic?) ... as opposed to those who were seemingly young and healthy?

I agree that too many statistics are thrown at the public which lack full context. More demo-specific stats are available, though, to people interested in analyzing more complete studies.
 
#19,232
#19,232
I'll summarize my positions over the past two years, so they can be evaluated for political motivation:

- the virus does not seem natural, likely lab created
- Fauci et al were involved in GOF research
- kids are at miniscule risk and should continue with regular school
- cloth and paper masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of respiratory viruses
- lockdowns are not a feasible solution to a respiratory virus and would likely lead to far worse economic devastation and collateral damage to physical and mental health
- narrow-coverage mRNA shots are not likely to eradicate a respiratory virus, which is expected to mutate, and they will not prevent the emergence of new "variants"
- mRNA shots have the risk of several known adverse effects, and their long-term effects are unknown
- mRNA shots should not be given as a "one size fits all," but rather focused on at-risk groups of the population, where benefit likely outweighs known and unknown risks
- mRNA shots with known risks and unknown long term safety data should never be mandated, as this is a violation of medical ethics
- recovery from infection should elicit an immune response as good as, or potentially broader and more lasting than mRNA shots
- we have failed miserably at the development, production, and distribution of therapeutics

Feel free to respond to each.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Orange_Vol1321, joevol33 and 2 others
#19,235
#19,235
kiddiedoc said:
So, since the CDC MMWR release doesn't say what you want it to and clearly demonstrates that all of us who have called for the recognition of naturally-acquired immunity have been right all along, I'm unprofessional, foul, and disgusting? You do realize the sentence I quoted was directly from the abstract, yes?

A few more:





Also, would you mind explaining what my "tribal political agenda" is?
Click to expand...
You have done much more than simply "call for recognition" of naturally-acquired immunity. You have advocated against vaccination. There were many caveats to that over-simplified conclusion. Your sentence was only a snippet of what was said. Your agenda is very clear... and based on the totality of your posting history to this forum, it is politically motivated, and I find that to be sickening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#19,236
#19,236
BowlBrother85 said:
You have advocated against vaccination.
Click to expand...

No I haven't. Demonstrate.

BowlBrother85 said:
Your agenda is very clear... and based on the totality of your posting history to this forum, it is politically motivated, and I find that to be sickening.
Click to expand...

WTF does that even mean? Pure frontier jibberish.

Read the post above, buddy, and try to get back to me between bouts of nausea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#19,244
#19,244
BowlBrother85 said:
Your basic point, is that statistical data tells an incomplete picture without detailed and target-specific context. Even what you provided isn't very helpful. Of the 9.7% who were unvaccinated and died, what percentage was in a high-risk demographic? (over 70, obese, diabetic?) ... as opposed to those who were seemingly young and healthy?

I agree that too many statistics are thrown at the public which lack full context. More demo-specific stats are available, though, to people interested in analyzing more complete studies.
Click to expand...
Those were the stats provided by the article from CNBC as they quoted the director of the CDC.
 
#19,246
#19,246
kiddiedoc said:
I'll summarize my positions over the past two years, so they can be evaluated for political motivation:

- the virus does not seem natural, likely lab created
- Fauci et al were involved in GOF research
- kids are at miniscule risk and should continue with regular school
-cloth and paper masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of respiratory viruses
- lockdowns are not a feasible solution to a respiratory virus and would likely lead to far worse economic devastation and collateral damage to physical and mental health
- narrow-coverage mRNA shots are not likely to eradicate a respiratory virus, which is expected to mutate, and they will not prevent the emergence of new "variants"
- mRNA shots have the risk of several known adverse effects, and their long-term effects are unknown
- mRNA shots should not be given as a "one size fits all," but rather focused on at-risk groups of the population, where benefit likely outweighs known and unknown risks
- mRNA shots with known risks and unknown long term safety data should never be mandated, as this is a violation of medical ethics
- recovery from infection should elicit an immune response as good as, or potentially broader and more lasting than mRNA shots
- we have failed miserably at the development, production, and distribution of therapeutics

Feel free to respond to each.
Click to expand...
What about animals being reservoirs of the virus? And what's the difference between an animal reservoir and animal carrier?
 
#19,247
#19,247
kiddiedoc said:
I'll summarize my positions over the past two years, so they can be evaluated for political motivation:

- the virus does not seem natural, likely lab created
- Fauci et al were involved in GOF research
- kids are at miniscule risk and should continue with regular school
- cloth and paper masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of respiratory viruses
- lockdowns are not a feasible solution to a respiratory virus and would likely lead to far worse economic devastation and collateral damage to physical and mental health
- narrow-coverage mRNA shots are not likely to eradicate a respiratory virus, which is expected to mutate, and they will not prevent the emergence of new "variants"
- mRNA shots have the risk of several known adverse effects, and their long-term effects are unknown
- mRNA shots should not be given as a "one size fits all," but rather focused on at-risk groups of the population, where benefit likely outweighs known and unknown risks
- mRNA shots with known risks and unknown long term safety data should never be mandated, as this is a violation of medical ethics
- recovery from infection should elicit an immune response as good as, or potentially broader and more lasting than mRNA shots
- we have failed miserably at the development, production, and distribution of therapeutics

Feel free to respond to each.
Click to expand...
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'll never not believe this wasn't released from a lab. There were millions protesting in the streets daily in China for democracy, then some dude eats a bat, and everyone has to stay inside? Nah, that's not the truth. Then, Democrats saw their opportunity, and made it political. They were the ones, Pelosi specifically, telling people to hug people flying in from China. They knew they could play this like a fiddle, and they did. Of course there's die hard folks who are loyal to trump and think it's still fake, but they're not as many as there are Democrats who want it for control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#19,249
#19,249
willidan said:
Folks, I appreciate the discussion. I try to seek out a variety of information streams across the media spectrum. That is one of the reasons I sometimes frequent the politics section of volnation, to see what patients and people I care for believe about certain topics and where they get those beliefs from. I believe, from my assessment and interpretation of the available data and published primary peer reviewed works, that the benefits of the vaccination significantly outweigh the risks for all folks in which it is currently approved to be administered. This interpretation admittedly could be wrong but I don’t believe it to be. I don’t think me saying that will make a difference but I feel the need to say it. I won’t be commenting anymore here, but best of luck and stay safe. I more frequently come to Volnation because I have a passion for the Vols. I bet most of us can at least agree on that.
Click to expand...
Don't run off, put another layer of skin on and pull up a chair. 😉
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top