Covid Vaccine. Your plans?


Covid Vaccine  

228 members have voted

  1. 1. Once the Covid Vaccine is available, when do you plan to receive it?

    • Immediately once I’m selected.
      92
    • Wait a month and let others who need it go first.
      22
    • Wait 3 to 6 months and see the data.
      55
    • Never, this rushed vaccine has too much potential detriment
      25

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 01/01/2021 at 05:59 AM

Recommended Posts

Just now, Baccy said:

If one child/person chooses to not get the vaccine for whatever reason, but everyone else in a given group has gotten inoculated, how would the unvaccinated person threaten them in any way? They're protected correct?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

sure, but that is perfect world stuff. we both know that it is not that simple. it won't be 99 protected and just the one not covered. what you say is fine but sadly reality is not so convenient. 

we then go down yet another rabbit hole with how effective is the vaccine? 100% effective? if not, your scenario runs into more problems. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 570
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

cigar smokers talking about adverse health results of a vaccine ....  Only in 2020.  Can't wait for this dumpster fire of a year to be over. 

I was vaccinated today.  No issues with me, or anyone else at my hospital who has been vaccinated.    

In a key sense, this is absolutely true: prevention and treatment are fundamentally different approaches to managing an epidemic. Invariably both are used whenever possible (e.g. STD's). A vaccine is

sure, but that is perfect world stuff. we both know that it is not that simple. it won't be 99 protected and just the one not covered. what you say is fine but sadly reality is not so convenient. 
we then go down yet another rabbit hole with how effective is the vaccine? 100% effective? if not, your scenario runs into more problems. 
Very true... that's why I will hold off. At least initially. If this mrna vaccine is eventually proven safe(long term) and effective then I will get it. High risk groups should probably get it regardless as they likely have more to risk from covid itself than the shot...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baccy said:

If one child/person chooses to not get the vaccine for whatever reason, but everyone else in a given group has gotten inoculated, how would the unvaccinated person threaten them in any way? They're protected correct?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Ah, but what about those who, for medical reasons (eg severe allergic reaction), cannot receive the vaccination? That one person who says no, now puts the compromised person at risk. It''s the same reason why peanut butter, eggs, nutella, kiwi fruit, bananas etc are no longer allowed in school lunches over here. it may be annoying and an inconvenience to the child/parent, but it protects the vulnerable by removing the risk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

Ah, but what about those who, for medical reasons (eg severe allergic reaction), cannot receive the vaccination? That one person who says no, now puts the compromised person at risk. It''s the same reason why peanut butter, eggs, nutella, kiwi fruit, bananas etc are no longer allowed in school lunches over here. it may be annoying and an inconvenience to the child/parent, but it protects the vulnerable by removing the risk.

That's kind of the point I was making... or trying to at least. The person who says no may have a very good reason for saying no, such as allergies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fungi said:

I'll take the vaccine as soon as it becomes available to me!

 

Your claim is presented without evidence. The official reason given for retraction can be found here and seems to be widely accepted as accurate.

 

Genuine question: is the link provided with your last statement offered as evidence to support the claim? If so, it fails to meet that bar:

1. The focus of the article is Italy. A single country doesn't represent the world.

2. The article mentions nothing about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine, only that it can now be used for off-label treatment, which was previously prohibited. If we're defining success as: can Hydroxychloroquine be used as a treatment for Covid-19 in Italy? Then yes, but again, Italy is not the world and I think that falls outside the definition most people would associate with success in this situation: is Hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for Covid-19.

https://hcqmeta.com/

meta analysis of 164 seperate studies carried out across 15 + Countries.

It really only takes a few minutes to find plenty of information for its continued use throughout the world. Please bear in mind that I make no claim to how successful it is, rather just pointing out fallicies posted on this thread.

People acting as some sort of authority on this subject are truly wasting their time...Try asking the Chair of Harvard Chemistry & Chemical Biology Department, he might be able to clear up a few of your questions ?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related

 

Its much easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The vaccine works and is perfectly safe for everyone” will be 2021’s version of “but they are all just peaceful protestors.” 

Whatever happened to the “my body, my choice” certain global political movements have been pushing for decades?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




 
Its much easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.

 


Advice is like cooking: you should try it before you feed it to others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't do everybody right.I will take the vaccine when it becomes available due to underlying health issues such as diabetes,pneumonia,bronchitis.All of that is genetic.That being said,We all have to make choices,some will die sick and others will die healthy.I'm having a good life but I also avoid by going overboard and my upper management aka my wife watches out for me

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2020 at 6:18 PM, mprach024 said:

You keep posting articles, and from sources I’ve never heard of.

He started out with Daily Mail and Standard and arrived at The Lancet. I spot sort of an uptrend. :D

@Peekay, help me out, in a nutshell, what is it that you want to convey? That hydroxychloroquine would be more effective than a vaccination? That it is being linked with less / milder side effects? What’s your agenda? Make the point. That debate is slowly becoming tiring.

By now, HCQ is off the stove. Its effectiveness in any study, even in those claiming statistically positive effects, is so small that it is vastly being outweighed by its severe potential side effects. A debate on HCQ vs vaccination is a moot one.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

sure, but that is perfect world stuff. we both know that it is not that simple. it won't be 99 protected and just the one not covered. what you say is fine but sadly reality is not so convenient. 

we then go down yet another rabbit hole with how effective is the vaccine? 100% effective? if not, your scenario runs into more problems. 

Won’t be, that’s clear already at this point (and there will be those with contraindications of course who cannot receive it). And it is also clear that after start of vaccinations, we will still have to keep to masks, social distancing and all those other hygiene measures for some time persisting. Irrespective of a person’s individual immunological state. It is still not completely clear as to how effective it will be in suppressing further transmission even after you’re immune. Only after bringing overall infections down again to a low level will far-reaching relaxations be allowed to set in.

And that’s also why it is so important why people (a majority) are requested to act responsibly and not „hold off“. Because the sooner we bring this down the less people die or have to suffer long-term effects of an undergone infection, the sooner will economy recover, and all in all, the sooner we all will be out of this mess.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, potpest said:

Advice is like cooking: you should try it before you feed it to others.

Irony is a subjective thing. I would read back what you have contributed to the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

He started out with Daily Mail and Standard and arrived at The Lancet. I spot sort of an uptrend. :D

@Peekay, help me out, in a nutshell, what is it that you want to convey? That hydroxychloroquine would be more effective than a vaccination? That it is being linked with less / milder side effects? What’s your agenda? Make the point. That debate is slowly becoming tiring.

By now, HCQ is off the stove. Its effectiveness in any study, even in those claiming statistically positive effects, is so small that it is vastly being outweighed by its severe potential side effects. A debate on HCQ vs vaccination is a moot one.

Hey Fugu, I was dealing with the comments that suggested that hydroxychloroquine has no positive effect on Covid 19. This is patently false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Baccy said:

High risk groups should probably get it regardless as they likely have more to risk from covid itself than the shot...

The vaccine would need to have negative effects unprecedented in modern vaccinology to be as dangerous as COVID for anyone except perhaps young children. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fugu, I was dealing with the comments that suggested that hydroxychloroquine has no positive effect on Covid 19. This is patently false. 
The comments stated that hydroxychloroquine was found to be an ineffective treatment in the clinical trials which is not patently false.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-05-no-clinical-benefit-use-hydroxychloroquine-hospitalised-patients-covid-19

Why do you dismiss these major large clinical trials in preference for smaller inferior studies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Peekay said:

This is patently false. 

It is not patently false. If at all it is subject of the current scientific discourse. But a discourse that, when trying to replicate here ad nauseam, I feel adds nothing of value to this current thread.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, potpest said:

 

Pretty much for the exact same reason 'The Lancet' retracted their report (Zinc). Just look at the date of each link you've provided.

https://hcqmeta.com/

164 seperate studies across 15 + countries...

100% of early treatment studies report a positive effect, with an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) from the random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.27-0.46].
Late treatment studies are mixed, with 77% showing positive effects, and an estimated reduction of 27% in the random effects meta-analysis. Negative studies mostly fall into the following categories: they show evidence of significant unadjusted confounding, including confounding by indication; usage is extremely late; or they use an excessively high dosage.
79% of PrEP studies show positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 43% in the random effects meta-analysis. Negative studies are all studies of systemic autoimmune disease patients which either do not adjust for the different baseline risk of these patients at all, or do not adjust for the highly variable risk within these patients.
83% of PEP studies report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 33% in the random effects meta-analysis.

 

 

As i've already stated, I was only dealing with the patently false claims made on this thread, not on how affective the treatment actually is.

Image

We are clearly dealing with mis-information on a grand scale and anyone claiming to be any sort of authority on this subject is flat out wrong.

My advice to anyone would be to keep your eyes peeled and ear close to the ground. They've always known exactly what this virus is and where it came from.

https://truthabouthcq.com/yes/

Anyone interested in actually learning something should read all of this.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related

"Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China.  On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.  He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fugu said:

It is not patently false. If at all it is subject of the current scientific discourse. But a discourse that, when trying to replicate here ad nauseam, I feel adds nothing of value to this current thread.

To say that Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Z-Pac combo have no positive affect on Covid 19 and Coronavirus, is patently false, sorry.

Give it a few weeks and the picture will become much clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, potpest said:

"We are clearly dealing with mis-information on a grand scale"

True, your posts are prime examples of that.

Sorry Pot, your cognative dissonance is showing. Try to engage with the information in the spirit that it was offered rather than posting pithy quips and ad homenims, we are all BOTL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, potpest said:

No effect on mortality or virus clearance, i.e. not an effective treatment dbf63b5d8d1f1b49eca8d1eb00ef75f4.jpgc33686568571bfa728a5054b4f35bd59.jpg

Same source says it is...madness isnt it? with this being the latest information from them...11th Sept.

Image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small studies which you seem to cherry pick, are not conclusive. It even states that and indicates the main limitations of the evidence are risk of bias and imprecision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.