Vaccine-Hesitant Man Happy About FDA Approval But Still Waiting On Tucker Carlson Approval
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
@Wylaff - as for the reasoning behind recommending EVERYONE get the vaccine - focusing on those who have already encountered the virus and may have built natural immunity:
My thought here is that there are a few reasons but the main one is whether or not natural immunity occurs is largely unpredictable. There are 2 main pathways or arms of the immune system: Innate and Adaptive/Acquired:
Innate immunity involves a separate set of cells and defenses and while it can be very effective at ridding the body of minor infections, it's not very targeted or specific. If someone came across the SARS-CoV2 virus at low levels (low viral load), there is a good chance their Innate Immune System would stop the infection before it was able to take hold, ridding their body of the virus in a short period of time.
Adaptive or Acquired Immunity involves B-Lymphocytes and T-Lymphocytes (B and T-Cells), circulated through our Lymphatic system. These are the Antibody (Ab) producing cells that give us longer lasting and learned or targeted immunity. This immune response tends to be much stronger and very targeted/specific but is much slower to build. If someone was infected with the SARS-CoV2 virus and the infection lasted long enough for the Adaptive Immune System to build Abs against the spike protein of the virus, then in theory, they may have some sort of lasting immunity. How long that immunity will last is uncertain, as even the adaptive immune response can wane over time.
In scenario 1, the Innate Immune System wiped out the virus before Adaptive/Acquired Immunity took place. These individuals would greatly benefit from the vaccine as they have not likely developed any lasting immunity. The individuals in scenario 2 MAY have lasting, natural immunity, due to the Adaptive Immune System. Unfortunately, doctors don't have an easy way to determine this, as Ab responses will always fall when they are not being challenged or not in the presence of the protein they were created against (the spike protein on the surface of the virus). So even in this scenario, there is more good than harm (no harm has been shown) in recommending even these individuals get vaccinated.
In the case of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA vaccines), the "blueprints" so-to-speak, to create Abs against the SARS-CoV2 spike protein are presented to immune cells and our immune cells create their own Abs. This is a much more accurate way to ensure the immune system is able to create antibodies with a specific amino acid sequence that will align with that of the spike protein of SARS-CoV2, as this alignment is crucial to those 2 pieces fitting together to elicit an immune response.
I hope this helps answer your questions and concerns and please let me know if you have any additional questions/concerns.
@Rob1110 You seem to be a smart/educated person, willing to take your time to educate and share knowledge. I am vaccinated and not anti-vax. But I am anti-mandate. I'd appreciate your feedback on this video. A couple of take-aways for me; the vaccine doesn't eliminate transmissibility, and the current vaccines deal with the virus in the lungs as opposed to nasal passages and throat (my guess as to the ability to be infected and spread by vaccinated), current vaccines being much less effective for variants, the 95% effectiveness is based on attenuating symptoms and not a measure of how protective the vaccine is. There was more, but it would be good to hear your thoughts on some of these.
We have someone at work that has refused to wear their mask now that it’s been reinstated. Yesterday we found out this person has knowingly come to work for over a week with covid.
**** storm is the best way to describe what we are going through now.
@peter4jc - that's a lot to break down. First, she's making a lot of generalized, sweeping statements, like "PhDs are the most vaccine hesitant." I'm not sure where she got that information but I've worked with a lot of PhDs in my career and have a lot of friends that are PhDs in different disciplines (Immunologists, Virologists, Neurologists, Geneticists, etc) and I can't think of a single one of them who isn't already vaccinated. I just don't know where her logic is coming from but that sort of statement makes me immediately skeptical of her.
Her statements regarding ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement), although she never actually mentions the term, she describes it: a situation where Antibodies (whether from vaccine or natural immunity) actually help a virus enter cells; is inaccurate in regards to SARS-CoV2.
Early on, she claims that vaccinated people are still able to spread the virus but almost hints to it being equal or even more-so than unvaccinated people, which really doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. We're seeing headlines all over the place: "Vaccinated individuals more likely to catch/spread covid" - the context is misleading. Vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and/or spread Covid than unvaccinated individuals. However, with the emergence of the delta variant, Vaccinated individuals are now more likely to contract and/or spread (delta) covid than vaccinated individuals were likely to spread non-delta covid. The fact that delta has become the major (and arguably only) variant in the US is how those statements can be misleading. Just a good example of how certain words can be left out and completely twist the meaning of something.
As for mandates, Unbiased Science just put out a piece today:
"COVID-19 vaccine mandates are beginning to pop up in the US. Yes, vaccine mandates have occurred before in the US. Yes, they were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Let’s take a look at Jacobson vs. Massachusetts way back in 1905.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Boston was experiencing a smallpox outbreak, after vaccines were available for this deadly illness. Of the 1596 people who became ill, 270 died. For those vaccinated, that was about 11% case fatality rate. For the unvaccinated, that number doubled to a 22% case fatality rate. After voluntary vaccination drives didn’t stop the spread of the virus, the Boston department of health enacted a vaccine mandate - which required eligible individuals to be vaccinated (or revaccinated if their first dose was before 1897) against smallpox, or be subject to a $5 fine or a 15-day jail sentence.
Henning Jacobson refused his smallpox vaccine, claiming that the mandate violated his ability to act as a free man, and thus, was fined $5 (the equivalent to $150 today). In response, he sued the state of Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court saw the case, and ultimately ruled AGAINST Jacobson. He was found guilty and forced to pay the fine.
The Supreme Court decided that even though the state could not pass laws requiring vaccination in order to protect a single individual, it CAN pass laws requiring vaccination in order to protect the public in the case of a dangerous communicable disease. This decision was made back in 1905 and rings true today.
The significance of vaccine mandates is to establish one thing: TO HELP THE PUBLIC. One individual action can affect several others and vaccine mandates help to ensure that the public remains safe.
Since then, many other vaccine mandates have been implemented – for workplaces, states, travel, schools, and more. These have been upheld for the same reason: they protect public safety and the wellbeing of our society.
As more states and employers enact COVID-19 vaccine mandates, remember: the law (and science) is on their side." - Unbiased Science
@ShawnOL - at current, the vaccines are fairly effective, even against the delta variant. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already sequenced the new variant to find out if there have been amino acid modifications to the spike protein that might help create new vaccines or a booster that better recognizes it. Though, none of this I can say for sure.
@Yakster - I just go by Rob but growing up I was Robbie. My family and oldest childhood friends still call me Robbie but anyone I met after high school calls me Rob. Actually, my family calls me much worse things but I'll leave that for another discussion.
@deadman said:
We have someone at work that has refused to wear their mask now that it’s been reinstated. Yesterday we found out this person has knowingly come to work for over a week with covid.
**** storm is the best way to describe what we are going through now.
@deadman said:
We have someone at work that has refused to wear their mask now that it’s been reinstated. Yesterday we found out this person has knowingly come to work for over a week with covid.
**** storm is the best way to describe what we are going through now.
@deadman said:
We have someone at work that has refused to wear their mask now that it’s been reinstated. Yesterday we found out this person has knowingly come to work for over a week with covid.
**** storm is the best way to describe what we are going through now.
The false vaccination link to autism absolutely applies me, both as a statistician and as the parent of two autistic babies. The study that this was based on only spurious correlation and not causation. It was a "numbers in a sterile environment" study that was immediately renounced upon peer review. For example
It makes me want to puke because it caused a generation of parents to decline vaccinations for their children. On the surface this might be perfectly fine. If those parents want to take a risk, then so be it, right?
Not really. There are many tens of thousands of children every year who cannot get vaccinations against meningitis and smallpox and all of the other afflictions because they are so immunocompromised. These are children with organ transplants and serious medical diseases who rely on the masses to be vaccinated so that outbreaks of these diseases don't occur.
We've begun to see isolated outbreaks happen for some of these diseases already, and I'm guessing we will see more in the future.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@VegasFrank - Love the correlation charts. A buddy of mine is a business analyst at my last company (we produced antibodies for research - mainly focused on cancer - our products were used to characterize and better understand protein function in normal vs abnormal/diseased state) and said he was at a Tableau conference and there was a dude there that presented all kinds of ridiculous correlative charts like this. You can find the most insane correlations (even John Oliver covered this recently) when you look for them but people don't understand that correlation does not mean causation.
My personal example: Just about everyone gets up in the morning and puts pants on. Some of those people will go about their day and at some point may have a heart attack or get hit by a car and die. Why does nobody look at that correlation and say "WE GOTTA STOP WEARING PANTS!!! THEY'RE KILLING PEOPLE!!!"? Because it seems ridiculous and we all know pants aren't causing heart attacks or people to be hit by cars. Sure, there's a correlation but there's no causation or mechanism of action (this causes that).
I agree that it's infuriating because it's caused a wave of people who think they suddenly know better than the world's leading scientists because their favorite Hollywood celebrity read a now retracted paper and spread misinformation (even when said misinformation has been proven time and time again to be wrong).
I used to work part-time at a local liquor store and there was a younger girl that would come in from time to time and do tastings (she worked for a marketing company). I was always friendly and cordial to the folks who came in for tastings and would talk to them on occasion, if they were friendly as well. Somehow, during conversation with her, my occupation came up and upon learning I worked in science, she asked about my opinion on vaccinations (and admitted that she thinks there is a link between vaccines and autism and thus was not getting her son vaccinated). I explained to her that we're all vaccinated and we survived (likely because of those vaccinations for some of us) and went on to talk about the disproven theories, correlation does not equal causation, retracted papers, etc. Then went on to tell her that if she doesn't vaccinate her child, she's doing her child and everyone around them a great disservice. She just kind of stared at me, blankly. That was the first and last conversation we had.
To your point, her child is not only potentially at risk but is unknowingly putting children around him at risk. All this because his mother hasn't the slightest idea about science but is suddenly the expert because of her beliefs. Sorry, science doesn't care what you "believe," we look for evidence and data. One of my favorite (although least favorite things to hear at the time) things my old boss said to me when I screwed something up in an experiment was "that's why it's called RE-search. Do it again."
Just because you don't want vaccine mandates and ID cards doesn't mean you are anti-vaccine. That's a false correlation too.
For example, my wife won't get the vaccine cause every time she gets a flu vaccine she catches the flu. She doesn't want the Wuhan.
My step-daughter won't get it cause she's convinced that vaccines are why her son is autistic. She is not stupid (tho she did vote for a certain senile gentleman), but that's her thing. She's responsible, raises her children under her own steam and doesn't need you to show her THE WAY.
One grand-daughter has a compromised immune system. She ain't doing it.
I know a gal who caught polio from early vaccines. I wouldn't blame her if she didn't get the shot.
There's a million stories & a million reasons. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Get your own butt shot, quit worrying, and stop demanding the goose step outta the other guy. The thing about freedom is you have a right to be wrong.
I got the shot, BTW.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
"hasn't the slightest idea about science but is suddenly the expert because of her beliefs."
this^ has been happening for as long as there have been humans and is the primary source of unhappiness. I personally maintain a semblance of sanity by placing a low value on emotion-driven opinion, perhaps because of my autism. I consider this (dis)ability a strength.
@silvermouse - agreed. I often try to make my decisions based on logic rather than emotion. Most of us are emotional beings by nature but logic can be learned.
@Rob1110 said: @silvermouse - agreed. I often try to make my decisions based on logic rather than emotion. Most of us are emotional beings by nature but logic can be learned.
I wish the school systems would start teaching it.
Wish in one hand......
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Rob1110 said: @silvermouse - agreed. I often try to make my decisions based on logic rather than emotion. Most of us are emotional beings by nature but logic can be learned.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here. One of my greatest lessons (and it still remains one of my greatest mysteries) was discovering in a very personal manner that people of the opposite political persuasion were brilliant, reasoning individuals.
I say that as a preface that there are plenty of brilliant, reasoning individuals who would disagree with your stance/position/understanding of this virus/pandemic. I don't know your qualifications to address the subject but you obviously are qualified, but then there are those with (I assume) greater qualifications helping form your opinion and understanding, yes? But what do we do with those who are equally qualified as those you glean wisdom from, who reach other conclusions based on their research/studies/perspectives?
How do we determine what is honest and true (logic) rather than emotion w/o letting our own bias or preconceptions enter in? How do we trust your/our logic when other experts have differing outcomes? You might say 'every expert I know supports this viewpoint' or 'the vast majority of experts...' but that may or may not be true, nor does it mean their findings are correct. You might also say 'the experts who disagree w/ my understanding are just people making videos online'. But do I (or you) ever examine what we believe to question our assumptions? If I don't ascribe some credence to honest people who disagree w/ my conclusions, or come to my conclusions for any wonky reasons (like political affiliation, etc), this country will never get out of this mess.
(just because I quoted Rob at the top, this is meant for open discussion)
Question everything. Then find out for yourself.
I don't believe in trusting the "experts". Especially when a lot experts don't agree.
As @peter4jc stated, this is a mess we most likely will not recover from.
Labeling people, who are not getting the shots, all anti-vaxxers shows a lack of understanding of people and their core beliefs. Everything about all of this has turned into a mess.
.
As @webmost stated, there are many valid reasons people aren't getting or put off getting the shots. Not to mention the fact that until just recently, they weren't FDA approved.
I am mandated by Oregon's governor to get the shots or lose my job.
I will get the FDA approved vaccine and haven't gotten it until now, because of the medications I am on. Medical advice suggested I waited until one of them were approved and then get that vaccine. Right or wrong, I am not a doctor and trust the medical personnel that I see.
That being said, I can retire at any time and even though I am getting the shots, their threats are ones that I may just push to see what they are willing to do. I am not a fan of being threatened.
Forcing people to get the shots is just creating animosity, distrust and division.
You can argue the merits of it and the rights issues on both sides, but realistically, forcing people to do anything, often turns bad.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
When I don't know a lot about something, one of the first things I ask myself when reading someone else's writing on that topic is "what do they gain out of this?".
For example, if I need to learn how to cook a recipe, when I'm trying to find one, I'll make sure to avoid one that's associated with a branded ingredient. The only way the independent cook gains anything, is if I make their recipe, and it's great, and I share it with friends or post it on social media. If someone works for a grill company for example, I won't look at their recipe for how to make wings, because they won't even consider the option of using a fryer instead, because that doesn't gain them anything. If an independent chef suggests it, then I'll consider it.
When reading about politics as opposed to food, readers aren't looking to make the best tasting thing. most readers today are looking for writers who will reinforce their beliefs. That's somewhat new. Back in the day, people read the news to gain information. That meant that the authors of the news gained from being accurate and informed, because they gained readers. Today, news authors write with a slant, because that's what gains readers now.
When reading about science, that used to fall into the recipe category as opposed to the political category. Scientific writers were generally trying to gain credibility within their community, as opposed to gaining readers, so they can then gain more money at their current or new job, or cure a disease, or whatever else comes along with being the first correct person regarding that thing. Now, with COVID specifically, readers are trying to find scientists who agree with them. Scientists in turn are writing things that gain them readers, so that they can gain prestige and make money from speaking gigs or other things. That's now created the need for me to question what a scientist gains, which used to not be needed.
Because of the science, I am very much pro vaccine, and I want everyone to independently choose to get it. The science inarguably says that it's a good thing for your health, and anyone who's claiming that it's not hasn't done the correct research. That's a fact.
Because of the Overton window, I am very much anti mandate. If a mandate were to occur, and everyone was forced to get the vaccine, less people would get COVID, and humanity as a whole would live longer and spend less money on health care. That's a fact. The exact same thing is true for unhealthy food. The arguments that pro mandate people use for their case can be transferred over to junk food perfectly. If it was mandated that people could not eat more than a certain amount of fat or sugar per day, then humanity as a whole would live longer and spend less money on health care. That's a fact. The difference is that no one enjoys getting COVID, but people enjoy junk food, so it's not as extreme to support a vaccine mandate. If the mandate starts with COVID, then the Overton window shifts, and next, a mandate against junk food is less extreme than it used to be. Maybe after COVID, they don't go all the way straight into limiting what you can cook in your own home, but they start by saying you can't buy a large bottle of soda in New York City... Oh... Wait...
Junk food is just one example of the Overton window shifting, it could also shift regarding information you're allowed to have, or what you're allowed to do in your free time. Overall, I think it would lead to a worse and less enjoyable life than what we have now with no mandate in place. Not right away, but over time. That's just my personal view though, and it's not a fact, it's just how I see things playing out.
I'm not anti-vax. I'm actually pro-vax when there is an actual, fully working vaccine. Unfortunately, we don't have one. What we have is something that kinda works, but not really. Vaccines are supposed to prevent you from getting a disease. I have no real interest in getting the current supposed vaccine. Instead of people fighting over what we have now, how about we push for an actual vaccine that prevents you from getting or spreading the stated disease. The polio vaccine worked or people would still be getting it. If the polio vaccine had been as useless as this current multi-billion dollar vaccine wed all still be getting polio.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
As I said in another thread, I wish that schools would teach logic.
A lot of people who are against the vaccine have put forth valid arguments.
Unfortunately for them, none have yet put forth cogent arguments.
Cogency is the measure one must attain in order to settle the argument in your favor.
I have yet to see a cogent anti-vaccination argument on this forum.
Sadly, there's nothing to be done, as emotive argument is what the anti-vaccination crowd clings to.
Not trying to put anyone down, or hurt anyone's feelings. Just the facts.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
A lot of people who are against the vaccine have put forth valid arguments.
Unfortunately for them, none have yet put forth cogent arguments.
It's probably because there isn't one.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@peter4jc - antagonize away. That's what I liked about philosophy and ethics classes in college. It forced us to see things from another perspective. And that's also my issue with the other side of the debate. We have people making really important decisions based purely on emotion without providing any data or evidence, subsequently putting themselves in danger and allocating more health care resources that could be used to treat people who actually need it.
As for how we determine what is true logic rather than emotion: look for data, look for published articles that have been peer-reviewed, look to the experts. What are the majority of experts saying on a subject? Not the few fringe people with no data to back their claims that you should try animal de-wormer and some vitamins to cure covid. You'll be worm free, maybe even dead because you took a drug that was intended for an animal the size of a horse but you may also still get covid. Just stop calling poison control because you made an uninformed decision without consulting a medical professional.
@0patience - I agree that we need to stop politicizing everything, which is another reason to look at the data. If the opposing opinion aligns with your point of view but is never able to provide any data or convincing evidence, regardless of what credentials they may have (or claim to have) or what big words they throw around (scare tactics can work both ways and come from both sides), then it may not be a valid argument and it might be time to start questioning it and considering the majority opinion and what they have to say. Keep politics out of science.
I understand nobody likes being told what to do. Unfortunately we live in a society where people won't consider what might be best for the greater good.
@CalvinAndHobo - I love that you brought food into this. I agree with your sentiment but I tend to look at a few recipes and compare. Then I either go with the one that looks the most balanced or makes the most sense on paper or I go with a hybrid of recipes. Same for cocktails. More-so with cocktails - I'll often try different variations to find the one that I feel works best for my palate but always focus on balance.
I also agree that people look for science that fits their preconceived view of the world. Nobody wants to learn anything new or admit they might have been wrong, they just want someone to reinforce what they "already knew." Unfortunately, you're right that it's created a platform for bad science. Not that it hasn't always existed (look at studies on obesity funded by the sugar industry and how it shaped the entire food industry with the "fat free" craze and only served to worsen the problem) but it's become.....ugh, this feels so wrong in this instance.....epidemic. And I see your point about freedom of choice applying to junk food but obesity isn't transmissible. You can eat all the junk food you want but you'll never give me junk food if I don't want it. The same cannot be said for a highly transmissible virus.
@ShawnOL - The current SARS-CoV2 vaccines initially showed high effectiveness (94+%) but that has declined with the delta variant. Polio vaccines by comparison, show 90% effectiveness after 2 doses and 99-100% after 3. So the current vaccines are absolutely effective and we can't always expect a perfect outcome. Effective is good enough in this case. If we had vaccinated enough people prior to the emergence of the delta variant, there is a strong chance we would not be seeing the surge we are. Instead, we have entire states where vaccination rates are well below 50% - mostly because people have become science deniers and are making decisions based purely on emotion. So calling the current vaccines useless is a bit off base.
@Amos_Umwhat and @VegasFrank - that's exactly my point. If someone from the anti-vax, non-vax, anti-mandate, etc crowd put forth a valid argument that had sufficient supporting data, I would absolutely be willing to listen. Instead, it seems more like grasping at straws or throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Give me evidence, not emotion.
Comments
The Chinese figured it out.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
Vaccine-Hesitant Man Happy About FDA Approval But Still Waiting On Tucker Carlson Approval
@Wylaff - as for the reasoning behind recommending EVERYONE get the vaccine - focusing on those who have already encountered the virus and may have built natural immunity:
My thought here is that there are a few reasons but the main one is whether or not natural immunity occurs is largely unpredictable. There are 2 main pathways or arms of the immune system: Innate and Adaptive/Acquired:
Innate immunity involves a separate set of cells and defenses and while it can be very effective at ridding the body of minor infections, it's not very targeted or specific. If someone came across the SARS-CoV2 virus at low levels (low viral load), there is a good chance their Innate Immune System would stop the infection before it was able to take hold, ridding their body of the virus in a short period of time.
Adaptive or Acquired Immunity involves B-Lymphocytes and T-Lymphocytes (B and T-Cells), circulated through our Lymphatic system. These are the Antibody (Ab) producing cells that give us longer lasting and learned or targeted immunity. This immune response tends to be much stronger and very targeted/specific but is much slower to build. If someone was infected with the SARS-CoV2 virus and the infection lasted long enough for the Adaptive Immune System to build Abs against the spike protein of the virus, then in theory, they may have some sort of lasting immunity. How long that immunity will last is uncertain, as even the adaptive immune response can wane over time.
In scenario 1, the Innate Immune System wiped out the virus before Adaptive/Acquired Immunity took place. These individuals would greatly benefit from the vaccine as they have not likely developed any lasting immunity. The individuals in scenario 2 MAY have lasting, natural immunity, due to the Adaptive Immune System. Unfortunately, doctors don't have an easy way to determine this, as Ab responses will always fall when they are not being challenged or not in the presence of the protein they were created against (the spike protein on the surface of the virus). So even in this scenario, there is more good than harm (no harm has been shown) in recommending even these individuals get vaccinated.
In the case of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (mRNA vaccines), the "blueprints" so-to-speak, to create Abs against the SARS-CoV2 spike protein are presented to immune cells and our immune cells create their own Abs. This is a much more accurate way to ensure the immune system is able to create antibodies with a specific amino acid sequence that will align with that of the spike protein of SARS-CoV2, as this alignment is crucial to those 2 pieces fitting together to elicit an immune response.
I hope this helps answer your questions and concerns and please let me know if you have any additional questions/concerns.
Cheers!
@Rob1110 You seem to be a smart/educated person, willing to take your time to educate and share knowledge. I am vaccinated and not anti-vax. But I am anti-mandate. I'd appreciate your feedback on this video. A couple of take-aways for me; the vaccine doesn't eliminate transmissibility, and the current vaccines deal with the virus in the lungs as opposed to nasal passages and throat (my guess as to the ability to be infected and spread by vaccinated), current vaccines being much less effective for variants, the 95% effectiveness is based on attenuating symptoms and not a measure of how protective the vaccine is. There was more, but it would be good to hear your thoughts on some of these.
We have someone at work that has refused to wear their mask now that it’s been reinstated. Yesterday we found out this person has knowingly come to work for over a week with covid.
**** storm is the best way to describe what we are going through now.
@peter4jc - that's a lot to break down. First, she's making a lot of generalized, sweeping statements, like "PhDs are the most vaccine hesitant." I'm not sure where she got that information but I've worked with a lot of PhDs in my career and have a lot of friends that are PhDs in different disciplines (Immunologists, Virologists, Neurologists, Geneticists, etc) and I can't think of a single one of them who isn't already vaccinated. I just don't know where her logic is coming from but that sort of statement makes me immediately skeptical of her.
Her statements regarding ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement), although she never actually mentions the term, she describes it: a situation where Antibodies (whether from vaccine or natural immunity) actually help a virus enter cells; is inaccurate in regards to SARS-CoV2.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/antibody-dependent-enhancement-in-vaccines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32785649/
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-vaccines
Just for some references to rebut her claim.
Early on, she claims that vaccinated people are still able to spread the virus but almost hints to it being equal or even more-so than unvaccinated people, which really doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint. We're seeing headlines all over the place: "Vaccinated individuals more likely to catch/spread covid" - the context is misleading. Vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract and/or spread Covid than unvaccinated individuals. However, with the emergence of the delta variant, Vaccinated individuals are now more likely to contract and/or spread (delta) covid than vaccinated individuals were likely to spread non-delta covid. The fact that delta has become the major (and arguably only) variant in the US is how those statements can be misleading. Just a good example of how certain words can be left out and completely twist the meaning of something.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html
As for mandates, Unbiased Science just put out a piece today:
"COVID-19 vaccine mandates are beginning to pop up in the US. Yes, vaccine mandates have occurred before in the US. Yes, they were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Let’s take a look at Jacobson vs. Massachusetts way back in 1905.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Boston was experiencing a smallpox outbreak, after vaccines were available for this deadly illness. Of the 1596 people who became ill, 270 died. For those vaccinated, that was about 11% case fatality rate. For the unvaccinated, that number doubled to a 22% case fatality rate. After voluntary vaccination drives didn’t stop the spread of the virus, the Boston department of health enacted a vaccine mandate - which required eligible individuals to be vaccinated (or revaccinated if their first dose was before 1897) against smallpox, or be subject to a $5 fine or a 15-day jail sentence.
Henning Jacobson refused his smallpox vaccine, claiming that the mandate violated his ability to act as a free man, and thus, was fined $5 (the equivalent to $150 today). In response, he sued the state of Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court saw the case, and ultimately ruled AGAINST Jacobson. He was found guilty and forced to pay the fine.
The Supreme Court decided that even though the state could not pass laws requiring vaccination in order to protect a single individual, it CAN pass laws requiring vaccination in order to protect the public in the case of a dangerous communicable disease. This decision was made back in 1905 and rings true today.
The significance of vaccine mandates is to establish one thing: TO HELP THE PUBLIC. One individual action can affect several others and vaccine mandates help to ensure that the public remains safe.
Since then, many other vaccine mandates have been implemented – for workplaces, states, travel, schools, and more. These have been upheld for the same reason: they protect public safety and the wellbeing of our society.
As more states and employers enact COVID-19 vaccine mandates, remember: the law (and science) is on their side." - Unbiased Science
Also, for anyone about to whine about "our founding fathers would never be ok with this" - https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html
Yeah, George Washington had a vaccine mandate.
The idea that she's still trying to make an argument linking vaccinations to autism is just beyond me. Even Snopes got that one right:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-medicine/
So when you break it down, she really doesn't have much credibility.
So are they going to make a vaccine for the Delta variant?
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
@ShawnOL - at current, the vaccines are fairly effective, even against the delta variant. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already sequenced the new variant to find out if there have been amino acid modifications to the spike protein that might help create new vaccines or a booster that better recognizes it. Though, none of this I can say for sure.
Thanks for the posts @Rob1110. Is that Rob E. or Robby?
@Yakster - I just go by Rob but growing up I was Robbie. My family and oldest childhood friends still call me Robbie but anyone I met after high school calls me Rob. Actually, my family calls me much worse things but I'll leave that for another discussion.
Yeah, I was just wondering because binary(1110) = hex(E).
Ha! Never thought of it that way. Actually, it's my birthday - Nov 10 but I like that it works both ways.
Wow is all I have to say
Sounds like an LGBTQ+LMNOP gender pronoun
Is that vector/creep still working there?
Not for long
8 vote @Rob1110 for forum president...
The false vaccination link to autism absolutely applies me, both as a statistician and as the parent of two autistic babies. The study that this was based on only spurious correlation and not causation. It was a "numbers in a sterile environment" study that was immediately renounced upon peer review. For example
It makes me want to puke because it caused a generation of parents to decline vaccinations for their children. On the surface this might be perfectly fine. If those parents want to take a risk, then so be it, right?
Not really. There are many tens of thousands of children every year who cannot get vaccinations against meningitis and smallpox and all of the other afflictions because they are so immunocompromised. These are children with organ transplants and serious medical diseases who rely on the masses to be vaccinated so that outbreaks of these diseases don't occur.
We've begun to see isolated outbreaks happen for some of these diseases already, and I'm guessing we will see more in the future.
Here are some more fun examples
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/kjh2110/the-10-most-bizarre-correlations
@VegasFrank - Love the correlation charts. A buddy of mine is a business analyst at my last company (we produced antibodies for research - mainly focused on cancer - our products were used to characterize and better understand protein function in normal vs abnormal/diseased state) and said he was at a Tableau conference and there was a dude there that presented all kinds of ridiculous correlative charts like this. You can find the most insane correlations (even John Oliver covered this recently) when you look for them but people don't understand that correlation does not mean causation.
My personal example: Just about everyone gets up in the morning and puts pants on. Some of those people will go about their day and at some point may have a heart attack or get hit by a car and die. Why does nobody look at that correlation and say "WE GOTTA STOP WEARING PANTS!!! THEY'RE KILLING PEOPLE!!!"? Because it seems ridiculous and we all know pants aren't causing heart attacks or people to be hit by cars. Sure, there's a correlation but there's no causation or mechanism of action (this causes that).
I agree that it's infuriating because it's caused a wave of people who think they suddenly know better than the world's leading scientists because their favorite Hollywood celebrity read a now retracted paper and spread misinformation (even when said misinformation has been proven time and time again to be wrong).
I used to work part-time at a local liquor store and there was a younger girl that would come in from time to time and do tastings (she worked for a marketing company). I was always friendly and cordial to the folks who came in for tastings and would talk to them on occasion, if they were friendly as well. Somehow, during conversation with her, my occupation came up and upon learning I worked in science, she asked about my opinion on vaccinations (and admitted that she thinks there is a link between vaccines and autism and thus was not getting her son vaccinated). I explained to her that we're all vaccinated and we survived (likely because of those vaccinations for some of us) and went on to talk about the disproven theories, correlation does not equal causation, retracted papers, etc. Then went on to tell her that if she doesn't vaccinate her child, she's doing her child and everyone around them a great disservice. She just kind of stared at me, blankly. That was the first and last conversation we had.
To your point, her child is not only potentially at risk but is unknowingly putting children around him at risk. All this because his mother hasn't the slightest idea about science but is suddenly the expert because of her beliefs. Sorry, science doesn't care what you "believe," we look for evidence and data. One of my favorite (although least favorite things to hear at the time) things my old boss said to me when I screwed something up in an experiment was "that's why it's called RE-search. Do it again."
Just because you don't want vaccine mandates and ID cards doesn't mean you are anti-vaccine. That's a false correlation too.
For example, my wife won't get the vaccine cause every time she gets a flu vaccine she catches the flu. She doesn't want the Wuhan.
My step-daughter won't get it cause she's convinced that vaccines are why her son is autistic. She is not stupid (tho she did vote for a certain senile gentleman), but that's her thing. She's responsible, raises her children under her own steam and doesn't need you to show her THE WAY.
One grand-daughter has a compromised immune system. She ain't doing it.
I know a gal who caught polio from early vaccines. I wouldn't blame her if she didn't get the shot.
There's a million stories & a million reasons. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Get your own butt shot, quit worrying, and stop demanding the goose step outta the other guy. The thing about freedom is you have a right to be wrong.
I got the shot, BTW.
"hasn't the slightest idea about science but is suddenly the expert because of her beliefs."
this^ has been happening for as long as there have been humans and is the primary source of unhappiness. I personally maintain a semblance of sanity by placing a low value on emotion-driven opinion, perhaps because of my autism. I consider this (dis)ability a strength.
@silvermouse - agreed. I often try to make my decisions based on logic rather than emotion. Most of us are emotional beings by nature but logic can be learned.
I wish the school systems would start teaching it.
Wish in one hand......
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here. One of my greatest lessons (and it still remains one of my greatest mysteries) was discovering in a very personal manner that people of the opposite political persuasion were brilliant, reasoning individuals.
I say that as a preface that there are plenty of brilliant, reasoning individuals who would disagree with your stance/position/understanding of this virus/pandemic. I don't know your qualifications to address the subject but you obviously are qualified, but then there are those with (I assume) greater qualifications helping form your opinion and understanding, yes? But what do we do with those who are equally qualified as those you glean wisdom from, who reach other conclusions based on their research/studies/perspectives?
How do we determine what is honest and true (logic) rather than emotion w/o letting our own bias or preconceptions enter in? How do we trust your/our logic when other experts have differing outcomes? You might say 'every expert I know supports this viewpoint' or 'the vast majority of experts...' but that may or may not be true, nor does it mean their findings are correct. You might also say 'the experts who disagree w/ my understanding are just people making videos online'. But do I (or you) ever examine what we believe to question our assumptions? If I don't ascribe some credence to honest people who disagree w/ my conclusions, or come to my conclusions for any wonky reasons (like political affiliation, etc), this country will never get out of this mess.
(just because I quoted Rob at the top, this is meant for open discussion)
Question everything. Then find out for yourself.
I don't believe in trusting the "experts". Especially when a lot experts don't agree.
As @peter4jc stated, this is a mess we most likely will not recover from.
Labeling people, who are not getting the shots, all anti-vaxxers shows a lack of understanding of people and their core beliefs. Everything about all of this has turned into a mess.
.
As @webmost stated, there are many valid reasons people aren't getting or put off getting the shots. Not to mention the fact that until just recently, they weren't FDA approved.
I am mandated by Oregon's governor to get the shots or lose my job.
I will get the FDA approved vaccine and haven't gotten it until now, because of the medications I am on. Medical advice suggested I waited until one of them were approved and then get that vaccine. Right or wrong, I am not a doctor and trust the medical personnel that I see.
That being said, I can retire at any time and even though I am getting the shots, their threats are ones that I may just push to see what they are willing to do. I am not a fan of being threatened.
Forcing people to get the shots is just creating animosity, distrust and division.
You can argue the merits of it and the rights issues on both sides, but realistically, forcing people to do anything, often turns bad.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
When I don't know a lot about something, one of the first things I ask myself when reading someone else's writing on that topic is "what do they gain out of this?".
For example, if I need to learn how to cook a recipe, when I'm trying to find one, I'll make sure to avoid one that's associated with a branded ingredient. The only way the independent cook gains anything, is if I make their recipe, and it's great, and I share it with friends or post it on social media. If someone works for a grill company for example, I won't look at their recipe for how to make wings, because they won't even consider the option of using a fryer instead, because that doesn't gain them anything. If an independent chef suggests it, then I'll consider it.
When reading about politics as opposed to food, readers aren't looking to make the best tasting thing. most readers today are looking for writers who will reinforce their beliefs. That's somewhat new. Back in the day, people read the news to gain information. That meant that the authors of the news gained from being accurate and informed, because they gained readers. Today, news authors write with a slant, because that's what gains readers now.
When reading about science, that used to fall into the recipe category as opposed to the political category. Scientific writers were generally trying to gain credibility within their community, as opposed to gaining readers, so they can then gain more money at their current or new job, or cure a disease, or whatever else comes along with being the first correct person regarding that thing. Now, with COVID specifically, readers are trying to find scientists who agree with them. Scientists in turn are writing things that gain them readers, so that they can gain prestige and make money from speaking gigs or other things. That's now created the need for me to question what a scientist gains, which used to not be needed.
Because of the science, I am very much pro vaccine, and I want everyone to independently choose to get it. The science inarguably says that it's a good thing for your health, and anyone who's claiming that it's not hasn't done the correct research. That's a fact.
Because of the Overton window, I am very much anti mandate. If a mandate were to occur, and everyone was forced to get the vaccine, less people would get COVID, and humanity as a whole would live longer and spend less money on health care. That's a fact. The exact same thing is true for unhealthy food. The arguments that pro mandate people use for their case can be transferred over to junk food perfectly. If it was mandated that people could not eat more than a certain amount of fat or sugar per day, then humanity as a whole would live longer and spend less money on health care. That's a fact. The difference is that no one enjoys getting COVID, but people enjoy junk food, so it's not as extreme to support a vaccine mandate. If the mandate starts with COVID, then the Overton window shifts, and next, a mandate against junk food is less extreme than it used to be. Maybe after COVID, they don't go all the way straight into limiting what you can cook in your own home, but they start by saying you can't buy a large bottle of soda in New York City... Oh... Wait...
Junk food is just one example of the Overton window shifting, it could also shift regarding information you're allowed to have, or what you're allowed to do in your free time. Overall, I think it would lead to a worse and less enjoyable life than what we have now with no mandate in place. Not right away, but over time. That's just my personal view though, and it's not a fact, it's just how I see things playing out.
I'm not anti-vax. I'm actually pro-vax when there is an actual, fully working vaccine. Unfortunately, we don't have one. What we have is something that kinda works, but not really. Vaccines are supposed to prevent you from getting a disease. I have no real interest in getting the current supposed vaccine. Instead of people fighting over what we have now, how about we push for an actual vaccine that prevents you from getting or spreading the stated disease. The polio vaccine worked or people would still be getting it. If the polio vaccine had been as useless as this current multi-billion dollar vaccine wed all still be getting polio.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
As I said in another thread, I wish that schools would teach logic.
A lot of people who are against the vaccine have put forth valid arguments.
Unfortunately for them, none have yet put forth cogent arguments.
Cogency is the measure one must attain in order to settle the argument in your favor.
I have yet to see a cogent anti-vaccination argument on this forum.
Sadly, there's nothing to be done, as emotive argument is what the anti-vaccination crowd clings to.
Not trying to put anyone down, or hurt anyone's feelings. Just the facts.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
It's probably because there isn't one.
@peter4jc - antagonize away. That's what I liked about philosophy and ethics classes in college. It forced us to see things from another perspective. And that's also my issue with the other side of the debate. We have people making really important decisions based purely on emotion without providing any data or evidence, subsequently putting themselves in danger and allocating more health care resources that could be used to treat people who actually need it.
As for how we determine what is true logic rather than emotion: look for data, look for published articles that have been peer-reviewed, look to the experts. What are the majority of experts saying on a subject? Not the few fringe people with no data to back their claims that you should try animal de-wormer and some vitamins to cure covid. You'll be worm free, maybe even dead because you took a drug that was intended for an animal the size of a horse but you may also still get covid. Just stop calling poison control because you made an uninformed decision without consulting a medical professional.
@0patience - I agree that we need to stop politicizing everything, which is another reason to look at the data. If the opposing opinion aligns with your point of view but is never able to provide any data or convincing evidence, regardless of what credentials they may have (or claim to have) or what big words they throw around (scare tactics can work both ways and come from both sides), then it may not be a valid argument and it might be time to start questioning it and considering the majority opinion and what they have to say. Keep politics out of science.
I understand nobody likes being told what to do. Unfortunately we live in a society where people won't consider what might be best for the greater good.
@CalvinAndHobo - I love that you brought food into this. I agree with your sentiment but I tend to look at a few recipes and compare. Then I either go with the one that looks the most balanced or makes the most sense on paper or I go with a hybrid of recipes. Same for cocktails. More-so with cocktails - I'll often try different variations to find the one that I feel works best for my palate but always focus on balance.
I also agree that people look for science that fits their preconceived view of the world. Nobody wants to learn anything new or admit they might have been wrong, they just want someone to reinforce what they "already knew." Unfortunately, you're right that it's created a platform for bad science. Not that it hasn't always existed (look at studies on obesity funded by the sugar industry and how it shaped the entire food industry with the "fat free" craze and only served to worsen the problem) but it's become.....ugh, this feels so wrong in this instance.....epidemic. And I see your point about freedom of choice applying to junk food but obesity isn't transmissible. You can eat all the junk food you want but you'll never give me junk food if I don't want it. The same cannot be said for a highly transmissible virus.
@ShawnOL - The current SARS-CoV2 vaccines initially showed high effectiveness (94+%) but that has declined with the delta variant. Polio vaccines by comparison, show 90% effectiveness after 2 doses and 99-100% after 3. So the current vaccines are absolutely effective and we can't always expect a perfect outcome. Effective is good enough in this case. If we had vaccinated enough people prior to the emergence of the delta variant, there is a strong chance we would not be seeing the surge we are. Instead, we have entire states where vaccination rates are well below 50% - mostly because people have become science deniers and are making decisions based purely on emotion. So calling the current vaccines useless is a bit off base.
@Amos_Umwhat and @VegasFrank - that's exactly my point. If someone from the anti-vax, non-vax, anti-mandate, etc crowd put forth a valid argument that had sufficient supporting data, I would absolutely be willing to listen. Instead, it seems more like grasping at straws or throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Give me evidence, not emotion.