It's Time to Mandate Vaccines

[Beach]

not sure why people think the person i voted for has anything to do with my decision to get vax or not

[plenzmd1]

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Where exactly have I focused on Trump supporters?  My comment was about health care workers not getting vaccinated.  anyone regardless of race, political persuasion or whatever are putting themselves and others at risk by not getting vaccinated.  I have also noted several times on this board that I support more studies on the immunity gained by natural immunity.  But the problem, as you should know, with natural immunity is that you have to get infected with Covid to gain that, and that then u=puts you at risk for dying. 

 

As for getting the entire world vaccinated, absolutely.  We need work on that too.  But nice job on your end taking my comment on health care workers and turning it into a diatribe of other issues, some of which I've already commented on and agree with.  Good focus on your end. 

Yeah, it's much more infectious, genius.

Your post main thrust was the vaccine was made political, and implied it was people on one side of the aisle/argument that made it political. My point is it has been made political by both sides, and one side seems to have much less tolerance and empathy than does the other side.

[oldmanfan]

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Your post main thrust was the vaccine was made political, and implied it was people on one side of the aisle/argument that made it political. My point is it has been made political by both sides, and one side seems to have much less tolerance and empathy than does the other side.

Which political persuasion is more for masks and vaccines and which one is not? 

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Where exactly have I focused on Trump supporters?  My comment was about health care workers not getting vaccinated.  anyone regardless of race, political persuasion or whatever are putting themselves and others at risk by not getting vaccinated.  I have also noted several times on this board that I support more studies on the immunity gained by natural immunity.  But the problem, as you should know, with natural immunity is that you have to get infected with Covid to gain that, and that then u=puts you at risk for dying. 

 

As for getting the entire world vaccinated, absolutely.  We need work on that too.  But nice job on your end taking my comment on health care workers and turning it into a diatribe of other issues, some of which I've already commented on and agree with.  Good focus on your end. 

Yeah, it's much more infectious, genius.

You're an idiot, I'm sorry to have responded at all. Lost cause.

You are just a mindless political foot soldier.

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Which political persuasion is more for masks and vaccines and which one is not? 

says the one who says" how did this get political"...casue people like you  and statements like this.

 

And, who made vaccines political...really..who did it

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/politics/biden-trump-coronavirus-vaccine.html

n his speech, Mr. Biden thrust the issue of a coronavirus vaccine to center stage in the presidential race, expressing grave concern over the political pressure he said Mr. Trump was exerting over the government’s approval process and accusing him of trying to rush out a vaccine for electoral gain.

 

And hmm,,,who made this political again..the vaccines that is?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/kamala-harris-says-she-wont-take-covid-vaccine-just-on-trumps-sayso-020511962.html

 

 

 

And what day did Pzizer announce its trials results? Hmm, few days after Biden was declared the winner...nah, nothing fishy there. Sure the data was just absolutley not ready on November 2nd. 

 

And hmmm, this doesnt seem political at all

 

https://trialsitenews.com/booster-program-decision-cdcs-director-walensky-goes-against-her-own-acip-aligning-with-fda-potus-and-pfizer/

 

Sure it has nothing to do with her bosses declaration in August that booster would be rolling out no matter what the data suggests...nah , that wasn't political.

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

 

 

 

No mandates needed.  No freedoms sacrificed.  

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

says the one who says" how did this get political"...casue people like you  and statements like this.

 

And, who made vaccines political...really..who did it

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/politics/biden-trump-coronavirus-vaccine.html

n his speech, Mr. Biden thrust the issue of a coronavirus vaccine to center stage in the presidential race, expressing grave concern over the political pressure he said Mr. Trump was exerting over the government’s approval process and accusing him of trying to rush out a vaccine for electoral gain.

 

And hmm,,,who made this political again..the vaccines that is?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/kamala-harris-says-she-wont-take-covid-vaccine-just-on-trumps-sayso-020511962.html

 

 

 

And what day did Pzizer announce its trials results? Hmm, few days after Biden was declared the winner...nah, nothing fishy there. Sure the data was just absolutley not ready on November 2nd. 

 

And hmmm, this doesnt seem political at all

 

https://trialsitenews.com/booster-program-decision-cdcs-director-walensky-goes-against-her-own-acip-aligning-with-fda-potus-and-pfizer/

 

Sure it has nothing to do with her bosses declaration in August that booster would be rolling out no matter what the data suggests...nah , that wasn't political.

 

 

You brought it  up, so I'm responding in kind.  If you were to look at those opposed to masks, opposed to vaccines, opposed to social distancing and such, which political persuasion was more more those and which was more against those since the beginning of the pandemic?  I'm ignoring your cherry picking, by the way.

2 hours ago, Albwan said:

You're an idiot, I'm sorry to have responded at all. Lost cause.

You are just a mindless political foot soldier.

Try again.  A scientists with 40 years research and clinical expertise that understand a lot more about viruses than most anyone on this board.  Are you denying the delta variant is more infectious?  Do you want to actually go on record with that?

Edited September 29, 2021 by oldmanfan

[oldmanfan]

37 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

 

No mandates needed.  No freedoms sacrificed.  

This is the way viruses work.  They infect communities, hit the unprotected, and as more people get infected the number of uninfected hosts start to decline and infection rates go down.  The peak for the delta variant in Florida was mid August, so it should be coming down by now as more people either get infected or get vaccinated.

 

This is basic virology.  You don't seem to ever want to try and understand that.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

This is the way viruses work.  They infect communities, hit the unprotected, and as more people get infected the number of uninfected hosts start to decline and infection rates go down.  The peak for the delta variant in Florida was mid August, so it should be coming down by now as more people either get infected or get vaccinated.

 

This is basic virology.  You don't seem to ever want to try and understand that.

That all makes sense.  And I generally agree with your posts.  For me the main point of contention is the governments official policy that insists that only the vaccine can provide any protection from the virus.  No exceptions.   No natural immunity exceptions, no exceptions for low-risk individuals, no exceptions for treatment options, no exceptions for anything.  Get vaccinated or else.  Lose your freedoms, lose you job, lose your life.  Do what we say.  Anyone that questions this is called either stupid or uninformed.   

Even though the vaccine does not provide immunity.  It provides protection as vaccinated people can get sick and in some cases die.  Even though the vaccine does not stop transmission.  Vaccinated people can infect others.  Even though it does not kill the virus.  Vaccinated people can carry a viral load.

This policy claims to be supported by science.  Science that is conveniently used or ignored as necessary.  Much of the science is in obvious conflict with this policy.  This policy is not medically driven.  Its is politically and socially driven.  Getting vaccinated is most likely a good idea for most people.  But the government's official policy is dysfunctional.   

 

[billsfan5121]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That all makes sense.  And I generally agree with your posts.  For me the main point of contention is the governments official policy that insists that only the vaccine can provide any protection from the virus.  No exceptions.   No natural immunity exceptions, no exceptions for low-risk individuals, no exceptions for treatment options, no exceptions for anything.  Get vaccinated or else.  Lose your freedoms, lose you job, lose your life.  Do what we say.  Anyone that questions this is called either stupid or uninformed.   

Even though the vaccine does not provide immunity.  It provides protection as vaccinated people can get sick and in some cases die.  Even though the vaccine does not stop transmission.  Vaccinated people can infect others.  Even though it does not kill the virus.  Vaccinated people can carry a viral load.

This policy claims to be supported by science.  Science that is conveniently used or ignored as necessary.  Much of the science is in obvious conflict with this policy.  This policy is not medically driven.  Its is politically and socially driven.  Getting vaccinated is most likely a good idea for most people.  But the government's official policy is dysfunctional.   

 

So what I don’t understand about the science issue is science is always changing, so how can we trust what we know today to be safe down the road? 
 

Case and point- In May 2006, the FDA approved Chantix as a safe drug to help adults quit smoking. It was approved. It was safe. It was effective. Fast forward 15 years and guess what, Phizer had to recall it less than two weeks ago because NOW they realize it causes cancer.  
 

THIS is what people are worried about with the vaccine. Not Biden. Not Trump. Not Fauci. I get MRNA has been studied for years. Has it ever been injected in humans safely prior to Covid? I don’t believe it has.

[Big Blitz]

7 hours ago, Beach said:

not sure why people think the person i voted for has anything to do with my decision to get vax or not

 

 

This is exactly the dynamic that they want.

 

DNCCP coup.  

[Big Blitz]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

This is the way viruses work.  They infect communities, hit the unprotected, and as more people get infected the number of uninfected hosts start to decline and infection rates go down.  The peak for the delta variant in Florida was mid August, so it should be coming down by now as more people either get infected or get vaccinated.

 

This is basic virology.  You don't seem to ever want to try and understand that.

 

 

Ummm...

 

I understand exactly how this works. 

 

No State mandates or protocols required.  It will run its course.  

 

*mind blown*

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That all makes sense.  And I generally agree with your posts.  For me the main point of contention is the governments official policy that insists that only the vaccine can provide any protection from the virus.  No exceptions.   No natural immunity exceptions, no exceptions for low-risk individuals, no exceptions for treatment options, no exceptions for anything.  Get vaccinated or else.  Lose your freedoms, lose you job, lose your life.  Do what we say.  Anyone that questions this is called either stupid or uninformed.   

Even though the vaccine does not provide immunity.  It provides protection as vaccinated people can get sick and in some cases die.  Even though the vaccine does not stop transmission.  Vaccinated people can infect others.  Even though it does not kill the virus.  Vaccinated people can carry a viral load.

This policy claims to be supported by science.  Science that is conveniently used or ignored as necessary.  Much of the science is in obvious conflict with this policy.  This policy is not medically driven.  Its is politically and socially driven.  Getting vaccinated is most likely a good idea for most people.  But the government's official policy is dysfunctional.   

 

If you look at the data vaccinated people do not stay infected as long, do not infect others at the same rate as unvaccinated, and of course are far less likely to be hospitalized or die.

 

Immunity is more properly considered a population term in my way of thinking.  For our population to acquire immunity, you have to remove hosts for the virus.  You do that two ways:  either have people get the virus and hopefully survive, or get vaccinated.  I am all for studies of those infected and survive with so-called natural immunity, with comparisons to vaccinated individuals.  What are the levels of antibody in each and how long do titers stay elevated?  What about the cell-mediated immunity with each?  We need more research in these areas.  But at present what seems clear is vaccination even if previously infected individuals increases the immune response.

 

You mention treatment options.  Those would be great.  But the best way to get meaningful data on that is to get well designed prospectively randomized studies.  For hydroxychloroquine these studies were done and showed no positive effect of the drug.  For ivermectin the studies have not been done; there are small studies suggesting an effect but they suffer from poor study design (small numbers, no controls, and such).  I review a lot of papers for different peer reviewed journals and reject the majority of them because of flaws in study design.

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 hours ago, Beach said:

not sure why people think the person i voted for has anything to do with my decision to get vax or not

The reason I find this funny is that last year I was called a fool for trusting Trump- which I don't trust anyone in government- by an individual who is loudly pro mandate now. If Trump had won I believe they would be loudly anti vax right now 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Ummm...

 

I understand exactly how this works. 

 

No State mandates or protocols required.  It will run its course.  

 

*mind blown*

Umm, you have proven over the last 20 months you don’t.

[Buffarukus]

30 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

If you look at the data vaccinated people do not stay infected as long, do not infect others at the same rate as unvaccinated, and of course are far less likely to be hospitalized or die.

 

Immunity is more properly considered a population term in my way of thinking.  For our population to acquire immunity, you have to remove hosts for the virus.  You do that two ways:  either have people get the virus and hopefully survive, or get vaccinated.  I am all for studies of those infected and survive with so-called natural immunity, with comparisons to vaccinated individuals.  What are the levels of antibody in each and how long do titers stay elevated?  What about the cell-mediated immunity with each?  We need more research in these areas.  But at present what seems clear is vaccination even if previously infected individuals increases the immune response.

 

You mention treatment options.  Those would be great.  But the best way to get meaningful data on that is to get well designed prospectively randomized studies.  For hydroxychloroquine these studies were done and showed no positive effect of the drug.  For ivermectin the studies have not been done; there are small studies suggesting an effect but they suffer from poor study design (small numbers, no controls, and such).  I review a lot of papers for different peer reviewed journals and reject the majority of them because of flaws in study design.

 

just wondering how long it takes to do these studies. those already immune and alternative therapies? you say outside vaccine other studies and trials are lacking. yet you pound the table for vaccines that just recently have been found to require booster shots. all studies on this virus are incomplete, including vaccine info. you seem ok to toss out or not deem it VERY suspicious that we have more "concrete" data on a manufactured immunity and not a natural where they can be discluded if they choose? 

 

longer time frame. tons of samples and I'm sure willing participants but, we just dont know! take this vax we have tons of data on and we will fig it out later. not good science. seems pretty skewed or ignored to me.

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, LeviF said:

A pandemic so terrible and hospitals so overburdened that we need to fire people that work in hospitals. 

I'm assuming they're replacing them.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

If you look at the data vaccinated people do not stay infected as long, do not infect others at the same rate as unvaccinated, and of course are far less likely to be hospitalized or die.

 

Immunity is more properly considered a population term in my way of thinking.  For our population to acquire immunity, you have to remove hosts for the virus.  You do that two ways:  either have people get the virus and hopefully survive, or get vaccinated.  I am all for studies of those infected and survive with so-called natural immunity, with comparisons to vaccinated individuals.  What are the levels of antibody in each and how long do titers stay elevated?  What about the cell-mediated immunity with each?  We need more research in these areas.  But at present what seems clear is vaccination even if previously infected individuals increases the immune response.

 

You mention treatment options.  Those would be great.  But the best way to get meaningful data on that is to get well designed prospectively randomized studies.  For hydroxychloroquine these studies were done and showed no positive effect of the drug.  For ivermectin the studies have not been done; there are small studies suggesting an effect but they suffer from poor study design (small numbers, no controls, and such).  I review a lot of papers for different peer reviewed journals and reject the majority of them because of flaws in study design.

To me immunity means I'm vaccinated and I can't get sick.  Period.  That is the expectation people have when they get vaccinated for some specific ailment or disease.  And that is the expectation officials set with the original vaccine rollouts.  Get the shot and life returns to "normal".  Now the word used more often than not is "protection" meaning you might get sick but not as bad as if you didn't get the shot. 

 

Can you quantify statements like "do not stay infected as long"?  Or point me to the source of data that I can access to find or calculate those figures for myself?  My suspicion is the data on these kinds of metrics is a bit muddled.

 

As for Ivermectin I would point to actual field use in India that is credited by officials and medical professionals there for significantly contributing to the suppression of the Delta outbreak.  And while the drug gets bad mouthed to death here in the US because it is also used to treat animals (not really that unusual a thing) I find it interesting that Pfizer is in the process of trialing a protease inhibitor molecule that is surprising similar to Ivermectin in chemical make up and function.  In some respects identical.  It would come at no surprise if their new offering gains fast approval as a legitimate treatment at something like 30x the price.     

[LeviF]

38 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm assuming they're replacing them.

Yeah. With soldiers. Who btw are not yet required to get vaccinated. 
 

See where this is going yet?

[Irv]

If anyone thinks our government knows what's going on with this pandemic, you need to put down the bong.  I don't blame them.  I get it.  This thing is evolving.  But don't trust the clowns at the CDC, FDA, or White House.  Demented Biden has botched this so badly, nobody can be trusted.  Trump got the vaccine to the people.  Demented Biden and Hyena Harris said they didn't trust it.  It's all politicized.  Then people died.  He said 1 in 5000 vaccinated people get COVID.  THAT IS A BOLD FACE LIE.   Trust yourself, your judgement.  Not some idiot politician - including Trump or whoever.   

 

What

A

Mess