• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News Pfizer says it's time for a Covid vaccine booster; FDA and CDC waiting for more data

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kev Kev

Gold Member
Oct 25, 2012
6,064
13,042
1,190
Oh, boy, have I got a doozy of an article for you.

Just look at this crock of shit.

Shock Omg GIF by Channel 7
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
All I stated is the reality. If you don't want to read it then bury your head in the sand and leave me alone.

I do worry about myself, which is why I am fine getting the vaccine. But several years from now, with poor vaccination rates, many more variants will continue to develop and then eventually escape vaccine effectiveness. Then my "personal responsibility" will be far less effective than it is now. That is 100% fact. But go ahead and laugh emoji this one as well since talking about reality triggers you so much.

What is the evidence for this recently popular idea that variants only develop in the unvaccinated?

I assume it's just faulty logic operating under the assumption that these vaccines actually provide significant protection against infection, even though I don't think that has even been claimed by any of the pharmaceutical companies that developed them and it certainly doesn't seem to be playing out in the real world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Moomalade74
Oct 26, 2018
23,481
33,045
885
Jesus Christ dude just give it up. If you’re vaccinated then just worry about yourself and can it. I’m tired of people speaking down to everyone like they have authority that they don’t actually possess.

We’re in the personal responsibility phase now. If someone wants to get vaccinated, great! If they don’t want to, that’s on them! You don’t have to even worry about it. Just get your vaccine and move on w your life.
All I stated is the reality. If you don't want to read it then bury your head in the sand and leave me alone.

I do worry about myself, which is why I am fine getting the vaccine. But several years from now, with poor vaccination rates, many more variants will continue to develop and then eventually escape vaccine effectiveness. Then my "personal responsibility" will be far less effective than it is now. That is 100% fact. But go ahead and laugh emoji this one as well since talking about reality triggers you so much.
Pretty hard to eradicate it when some places didnt even get the vaccine till later in the game. In Canada, I dont think the general public even got access to it till April at the earliest. Most people I know got their first shot in May and second shots are about now.

Also, governments dont even seem to be mandating it unless you are a front line health worker (or some similar job), so even the government doesnt lead by example forcing it. So if they dont want to even force it, nobody can expect 100% of people to take it.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
What is the evidence for this recently popular idea that variants only develop in the unvaccinated?

I assume it's just faulty logic operating under the assumption that the vaccines actually provide significant protection against infection, even though I don't think that has even been claimed by any of the pharmaceutical companies that developed them and it certainly doesn't seem to be playing out in the real world.
They are thought to develop when they have excess time to grow and mutate within one person. Variants are thought to develop from immunocompromised patients who get it. Instead of the virus having 10-14 days to mutate, they can stay in the patient for 2-3x that long. This has been widely talked about for 7+ months.



Pretty hard to eradicate it when some places didnt even get the vaccine till later in the game.
Very true, which is why the only sensible choice was to suspend patents so the entire world could get vaccinated. If Africa is unvaccinated, then we'll eventually get a new Africa variant, and the cycle continues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E-Cat and Keihart

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
Still not seeing how the vaccines are meant to stop mutations...
High vaccination rates prevent spread, and less immunocompromised people get it. It's a numbers game ultimately. The less people get it early, the less chances to mutate. Flu vaccines were not until far too late. Here we actually have a new virus that could be stopped early. Brett Weinstein was talking about the goal being eradication on some recent podcasts. But that seems pretty much impossible now at the current rates. So eventually, over the years - it will just slowly get worse. When it hits the vaccine escape level of the flu, it'll be far worse than it is now.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Moomalade74

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
Please provide evidence of this.
Feel free to look at the data from vaccine clinical trials I guess? They did the experiments and claimed it was 95% effective in stopping spread for 6 months. Not sure what you're getting at. Or look at the history of polio or smallpox.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Feel free to look at the data from vaccine clinical trials I guess? They did the experiments and claimed it was 95% effective in stopping spread for 6 months. Not sure what you're getting at. Or look at the history of polio or smallpox.

Certainly traditional vaccines are understood as being something that reduces risk of infection. Dramatically so, in fact. Is that the case with these COVID-19 vaccines? It seems very unclear, but we have a lot of examples of highly vaccinated areas seeing surges in recent weeks, so it seems unlikely they are highly effective to say the least.

And I did look into the clinical trials. I posted this in the main COVID thread recently, but didn't get any responses. If you have further insights, I would love to read them, because if the below is really how those figures were reached and sold to us, then we are being taken for a fucking ride.

---

In regards to the 95% efficacy against infection figure initially thrown out for the Pfizer vaccine, is this really the source?


A: The data to support the EUA include an analysis of 36,523 participants in the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants, who completed the 2-dose vaccination regimen and did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through 7 days after the second dose. Among these participants, 18,198 received the vaccine and 18,325 received saline placebo. The vaccine was 95 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 disease among these clinical trial participants with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. Of these 170 COVID-19 cases, 1 in the vaccine group and 3 in the placebo group were classified as severe.

So basically they took the number of people who "had evidence of infection through 7 days after the second dose" in each group and divided it by their respective total group sizes to get a percentage, then took the vaccine group's percentage and divided it by their placebo group's percentage to get 5%, or 95% efficacy?

Or basically this? Please correct me if I'm getting something (everything?) wrong about how they landed on this figure.

Total
Trial
Placebo
Trial vs. Placebo
Participants
36523​
18198​
18325​
99.31%​
Got Covid
170​
8​
162​
4.94%​
Got Severe Covid
4​
1​
3​
33.33%​
% of Total that got COVID
0.4655%​
0.0440%​
0.8840%​
4.97%
% of Total that got Severe COVID
0.0110%​
0.0055%​
0.0164%​
33.57%​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
Certainly traditional vaccines are understood as being something that reduces risk of infection. Dramatically so, in fact. Is that the case with these COVID-19 vaccines? It seems very unclear, but we have a lot of examples of highly vaccinated areas seeing surges in recent weeks, so it seems unlikely they are highly effective to say the least.

And I did look into the clinical trials. I posted this in the main COVID thread recently, but didn't get any responses. If you have further insights, I would love to read them, because if the below is really how those figures were reached and sold to us, then we are being taken for a fucking ride.

---

In regards to the 95% efficacy against infection figure initially thrown out for the Pfizer vaccine, is this really the source?




So basically they took the number of people who "had evidence of infection through 7 days after the second dose" in each group and divided it by their respective total group sizes to get a percentage, then took the vaccine group's percentage and divided it by their placebo group's percentage to get 5%, or 95% efficacy?

Or basically this? Please correct me if I'm getting something (everything?) wrong about how they landed on this figure.

Total
Trial
Placebo
Trial vs. Placebo
Participants
36523​
18198​
18325​
99.31%​
Got Covid
170​
8​
162​
4.94%​
Got Severe Covid
4​
1​
3​
33.33%​
% of Total that got COVID
0.4655%​
0.0440%​
0.8840%​
4.97%
% of Total that got Severe COVID
0.0110%​
0.0055%​
0.0164%​
33.57%​
I didn't get into the weeds that much in terms of the trials data. I'll leave that to people that actually are familiar enough with experiments of this kind to critique and debate it. Not really my area, and I haven't looked at that specifically.
 

vpance

Member
Jun 20, 2005
9,170
3,483
1,650
It's pretty much the opposite actually. If everyone got the vaccine early, then less immunocompromised people would get it and less variants would develop. Eventually it would be limited to the point of eradication. The goal should've been to wipe it out completely, which was a real possibility.

But with vaccination rates as low as they are now, there will be huge groups of people that will allow for it to spread, and develop new variants. Eventually, in the future - it will be similar to the flu where our vaccinations only have about 45% effectiveness and have to be annually predictive. Then things will be substantially worse than they are now, all because people didn't want to vaccinate early and stop it where it is now.

Variants will always develop because it's still infectious even among vaccinated people, and protection is so short lived. That's why the CDC and etc can only say it curbs severe covid and hospitalizations.

Maybe one day when better vaccines come out that last for years, they'll make a real impact. But mutation over time isn't all that terrible a thing since viruses normally turn less lethal. I think the wack a mole they played so early into a pandemic with these shoddy vaccines will be looked back on in history as something to never be repeated again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kev Kev
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I didn't get into the weeds that much in terms of the trials data. I'll leave that to people that actually are familiar enough with experiments of this kind to critique and debate it. Not really my area, and I haven't looked at that specifically.

I'm just saying, you don't have to be an expert to understand that it's kind of preposterous to look at 36,500 people in your trial with a wide variety of circumstances 7 days after they got their second doses, check whether or not they tested positive for COVID *at that point in time* using less than perfect tests, and then proclaim that your jab is 95% effective at reducing infection risk (especially when over 99% of the entire trial did not test positive at that point in time). Like, that is one hell of a stretch. It's no wonder it didn't even remotely pan out in the real world.

To be fair, I don't think Pfizer themselves or any of the manufacturer's actually come out claiming that getting the vaccine *will* reduce your risk of infection.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: godhandiscen
Oct 26, 2018
23,481
33,045
885
Considering how fast the whole covid thing happened where drug makers are churning out drugs and governments around the world approving all kinds of vaccines, in 8 months personally I dont think any of them really know what they are doing and were forced to rush things.

Case in point. During covid and everyone was waiting for vaccines, I dont remember reading they were even 2 dose requirements. Then all these various drugs get approved and then suddenly it's 2 doses spread out across a month or two.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
I'm just saying, you don't have to be an expert to understand that it's kind of preposterous to look at 36,500 people in your trial with a wide variety of circumstances 7 days after they got their second doses, check whether or not they tested positive for COVID *at that point in time* using less than perfect tests, and then proclaim that your jab is 95% effective at reducing infection risk (especially when over 99% of the entire trial did not test positive at that point in time). Like, that is one hell of a stretch. It's no wonder it didn't even remotely pan out in the real world.

To be fair, I don't think Pfizer themselves or any of the manufacturer's actually come out claiming that getting the vaccine *will* reduce your risk of infection.
If I regularly followed vaccine trials and had some experience to say if that was wildly inadequate testing, I'd comment on it. But it's really just not something I've ever looked at. I just know that every government that gets these things approved independently around the world all have different scientists that review these things, and I haven't heard a lot about the claims being inflated or inaccurate. People study these claims all over the world.


This one from Israel just a few days ago has totally different numbers. Part of why I said the reduction in effectiveness is a minimum of 84%. Some are claiming it's much lower now, which is why a lot of vaccinated people are getting infected. Could be due to it wearing off with time, or delta, or both combined. Not a coincidence that Israel is first in rolling out the booster if their testing says its declined that much.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
If I regularly followed vaccine trials and had some experience to say if that was wildly inadequate testing, I'd comment on it. But it's really just not something I've ever looked at. I just know that every government that gets these things approved independently around the world all have different scientists that review these things, and I haven't heard a lot about the claims being inflated or inaccurate. People study these claims all over the world.

Yeah, that's where I was until COVID hit and it became increasingly clear that a whole lot of our anointed experts (and by our, I mean the world) are completely full of shit. Or at least the ones that get a voice in regards to how things are done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Punished Miku

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
15,945
5,060
1,800
If I regularly followed vaccine trials and had some experience to say if that was wildly inadequate testing, I'd comment on it. But it's really just not something I've ever looked at. I just know that every government that gets these things approved independently around the world all have different scientists that review these things, and I haven't heard a lot about the claims being inflated or inaccurate. People study these claims all over the world.


This one from Israel just a few days ago has totally different numbers. Part of why I said the reduction in effectiveness is a minimum of 84%. Some are claiming it's much lower now, which is why a lot of vaccinated people are getting infected. Could be due to it wearing off with time, or delta, or both combined. Not a coincidence that Israel is first in rolling out the booster if their testing says its declined that much.

Israel’s study doesn’t claim that the delta variant is the cause for the drop in effectiveness, that is just an assumption atm, but nobody knows yet. It is possible that we are seeing different numbers as a product of other factors such as more accurate testing or different control groups.


Still, the new estimates have prompted some researchers to ponder what might be happening to the vaccines. The Delta variant grew more common in Israel in June, raising the possibility that it might be good at evading the vaccine.

In Britain, where Delta began surging earlier in the year, researchers estimated the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against the variant, based on a review of everyone in the United Kingdom who got vaccinated up till May 16. On Wednesday, they reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that it is 88 percent effective against symptomatic Covid-19.

Another possibility is that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is gradually becoming less potent. The Ministry of Health researchers found that people who were inoculated in January were having breakthrough infections at a greater rate than people vaccinated in April.

If the vaccine is indeed waning after six months, the implications can be enormous. It can influence the Israeli government’s current deliberations about whether to give people a third shot. Dr. Segal says that if the vaccines are indeed losing some of their potency, then it might be wise to roll out boosters to fight the Delta-driven outbreak.

From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Punished Miku

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
11,079
23,753
1,050
Israel study doesn’t claim that the delta variant is the cause for the drop in effectiveness, that is just an assumption atm, but nobody knows yet. It is possible that we are seeing different numbers as a product of other factors such as more accurate testing or different control groups.




From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html
I know. I said in my post it is unknown if it's decreasing vaccine effectiveness over time, delta, or both. So, I agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: godhandiscen

vpance

Member
Jun 20, 2005
9,170
3,483
1,650
Certainly traditional vaccines are understood as being something that reduces risk of infection. Dramatically so, in fact. Is that the case with these COVID-19 vaccines? It seems very unclear, but we have a lot of examples of highly vaccinated areas seeing surges in recent weeks, so it seems unlikely they are highly effective to say the least.

And I did look into the clinical trials. I posted this in the main COVID thread recently, but didn't get any responses. If you have further insights, I would love to read them, because if the below is really how those figures were reached and sold to us, then we are being taken for a fucking ride.

---

In regards to the 95% efficacy against infection figure initially thrown out for the Pfizer vaccine, is this really the source?




So basically they took the number of people who "had evidence of infection through 7 days after the second dose" in each group and divided it by their respective total group sizes to get a percentage, then took the vaccine group's percentage and divided it by their placebo group's percentage to get 5%, or 95% efficacy?

Or basically this? Please correct me if I'm getting something (everything?) wrong about how they landed on this figure.

Total
Trial
Placebo
Trial vs. Placebo
Participants
36523​
18198​
18325​
99.31%​
Got Covid
170​
8​
162​
4.94%​
Got Severe Covid
4​
1​
3​
33.33%​
% of Total that got COVID
0.4655%​
0.0440%​
0.8840%​
4.97%
% of Total that got Severe COVID
0.0110%​
0.0055%​
0.0164%​
33.57%​

It's 95% relative risk reduction for infection, but the absolute risk reduction published by Pfizer and Moderna is like 1-2%, without taking into account age, personal health status, or existence of comorbidities. So it'll be lower than that if you're healthy and younger. Doesn't sound nearly as enticing.

Basically the RRR number makes for better PR. It's common for drug companies to do this in their marketing. Like with statins, one of the worst drugs ever made for mass consumption, with an incredible amount of terrible side effects including dementia. But it's been widely prescribed off its 50% RRR of heart disease when in reality its preventative risk is minuscule.
 

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
I've never had a flu shot, and can't remember the last time I had the flu. My friends/family that get the yearly flu shot get the flu every year.

Same for covid; doubt I'll get it, but if I do, it will be extremely mild.

Healthy, exercise, vitamin D, eat well. Don't need flu shots. The body is hyper-effective at producing immunity in stock form.

This vaccine frenzy is somewhat hilarious though, particularly the fear / bribe factor surrounding it in a unified voice from the corporate media and .govs of the world.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
Still not seeing how the vaccines are meant to stop mutations...
Mutations are caused by errors in the replications process. Most mutations don't have any effect. Some make the virus weaker. Some make the virus stronger, and cause the virus to become deadlier or more infectious.

This is the pathway of evolution. The ability of an organism to make more copies of itself, and the ones that are fitter survive and make more copies of themselves. Repeat. Repeat.

Therefore, how does this process of evolution slow down?

1. Create less opportunities for the virus to replicate itself.

2. Even if a stronger mutation is randomly generated, kill it before it has a chance to reproduce.

This is how animals go endangered and then extinct. They die faster than they can reproduce, and they cannot adapt to changes in their environment quickly enough. This is how smallpox and polio (almost) got eradicated. The global vaccination programs made it so that those viruses can't survive in humans and when the habitable environment of a population is eradicated, so is the population.

Going back to COVID19, the more people who are vaccinated, the less opportunities the virus has to replicate itself, and thus there are less opportunities for mutation to occur. You are far less likely to have a serious complication from COVID if you are vaccinated because your immune system is fighting against the virus from day one, instead of day 3 or 4, for an unvaccinated person. That is a difference of millions, possibly billions of virus replications. The overall viral load is reduced.

Because of the lower viral load, the transmissibility is further reduced. This stops the virus from being able to find new, fertile ground. The more people are vaccinated, the more protected people are, and the less likely the virus will find a person to replicate itself in.

Less replications means less chances of mutation means less chance of one of those mutations making the virus stronger means less variants.
 

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
Going back to COVID19, the more people who are vaccinated, the less opportunities the virus has to replicate itself, and thus there are less opportunities for mutation to occur. You are far less likely to have a serious complication from COVID if you are vaccinated because your immune system is fighting against the virus from day one, instead of day 3 or 4, for an unvaccinated person. That is a difference of millions, possibly billions of virus replications. The overall viral load is reduced.

Because of the lower viral load, the transmissibility is further reduced. This stops the virus from being able to find new, fertile ground. The more people are vaccinated, the more protected people are, and the less likely the virus will find a person to replicate itself in.

Less replications means less chances of mutation means less chance of one of those mutations making the virus stronger means less variants.

Is that true in this case though? These vaccines aren't live-attenuated, they are gene therapy to reduce the effects, completely different mechanisms.

If anything, one could easily argue that the gene therapy we're calling "vaccines" (Pfizer, et al) give the virus a pathway towards mutating around the generated spike proteins....

If Covid 19 were a dangerous virus for more than .09% of the population, I could understand this mass human experiment, but as-is seems more dangerous to be testing an experimental gene therapy en masse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: silent

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
Famous last words.

Are they? 99.99999% survivability for my age / health.

I'll take my chances and be in the control group for this mass gene therapy experiment!

Wish everyone well no matter their choice to participate in the experiment or not.

This pandemic sure is setting history in a number of ways though, particularly, the first pandemic where one of the symptoms is no symptoms at all!
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Mutations are caused by errors in the replications process. Most mutations don't have any effect. Some make the virus weaker. Some make the virus stronger, and cause the virus to become deadlier or more infectious.

This is the pathway of evolution. The ability of an organism to make more copies of itself, and the ones that are fitter survive and make more copies of themselves. Repeat. Repeat.

Therefore, how does this process of evolution slow down?

1. Create less opportunities for the virus to replicate itself.

2. Even if a stronger mutation is randomly generated, kill it before it has a chance to reproduce.

This is how animals go endangered and then extinct. They die faster than they can reproduce, and they cannot adapt to changes in their environment quickly enough. This is how smallpox and polio (almost) got eradicated. The global vaccination programs made it so that those viruses can't survive in humans and when the habitable environment of a population is eradicated, so is the population.

Going back to COVID19, the more people who are vaccinated, the less opportunities the virus has to replicate itself, and thus there are less opportunities for mutation to occur. You are far less likely to have a serious complication from COVID if you are vaccinated because your immune system is fighting against the virus from day one, instead of day 3 or 4, for an unvaccinated person. That is a difference of millions, possibly billions of virus replications. The overall viral load is reduced.

Because of the lower viral load, the transmissibility is further reduced. This stops the virus from being able to find new, fertile ground. The more people are vaccinated, the more protected people are, and the less likely the virus will find a person to replicate itself in.

Less replications means less chances of mutation means less chance of one of those mutations making the virus stronger means less variants.

Oh, it's viral load that determines the chances of mutation, is it?

Well, according to recent reports, the Delta variant brings about 1000x the viral load of the original wild strain, so we should be seeing an explosion in new variants any day now as it continues its world domination.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
Is that true in this case though?
Probably. Why wouldn't it be?

These vaccines aren't live-attenuated, they are gene therapy to reduce the effects, completely different mechanisms.
Some are traditional vaccines. The mRNA ones are not gene therapy. Gene therapy is a totally different thing. Both traditional and mRNA vaccines reduce the chances of people catching the virus and of developing serious complications. This has been proven many times over.

If anything, one could easily argue that the gene therapy we're calling "vaccines" (Pfizer, et al) give the virus a pathway towards mutating around the generated spike proteins....
No you can't argue that because there is no basis for that argument.

If Covid 19 were a dangerous virus for more than .09% of the population, I could understand this mass human experiment, but as-is seems more dangerous to be testing an experimental gene therapy en masse.
over 600,000 people in the USA alone have already died due to COVID. How many people have died as a direct result of the vaccine? Zero. Maybe a few people have died due to blot clots that may or may not be related to the J&J vaccine (which is the traditional one, by the way). How many have been protected? Many.
 

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
No you can't argue that because there is no basis for that argument.

I'll tell you this, however it plays out with this new type of "vaccine", which my understanding is that it masks symptoms but doesn't prevent you from contracting the virus -- I'm glad it's giving you a measure of peace.

The amount of fear floating around in the last year, and destruction of people's psyche, is unparalleled in human history.

So if these new types of vaccines give you peace of mind, that makes me happy, especially if you're in the 70+ with morbidities group in which case perhaps it actually helps.

We'll know more in 5+ years the +/- results of this mass experiment. I believe a traditional vaccine had about a 10 year turnaround time from development to rollout.

We simply don't have enough scientific data to say at this point, nor will we, until the long-term effects are known.

------------

J&J's birth control fiasco from about a decade ago almost killed my wife with blood clotting, fortunately in that case there was a class action lawsuit.

I would avoid J&J personally, and that was an FDA approved pill. I'm fairly certain you can't sue these companies if the long-term reveals negative consequences with these mRNA experiments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: silent

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
Oh, it's viral load that determines the chances of mutation, is it?
It's one of the factors. Is it not common sense that the more times a virus replicates, the more chances a virus has of developing a mutation?
Well, according to recent reports, the Delta variant brings about 1000x the viral load of the original wild strain, so we should be seeing an explosion in new variants any day now as it continues its world domination.
Maybe maybe not. There's a lot of variables at play. At a basic level we can confidently say that the more chances an organism has to replicate the more chances it has to evolve. Therefore, the less chances we give the virus to spread and replicate, the less ability it has to evolve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
So you're saying keeping people welded into their homes and all businesses closed for 5 years is a better solution.

Nah -- like in the past, a virus that only results in death for .05%, we shouldn't be apoplectic and just accept that life has dangers, and we're all going to die.

For the old with compounding morbidity, just like influenza or pneumonia, eating healthy and exercise are primary to survival. Look at the death rates for influenza in that group, its similar.

For the 99.9% who covid won't and can't kill, we should go about life like normal.

Mass experimental injections rushed out in 8 months surely seems more dangerous than the above. Not to mention the global corporate voice coming to a crescendo. Something seems odd about it all no?
 
Last edited:

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
I have a family member on a ventilator right now dying because they bought into bullshit anit-vax lies like that and wouldn't take the shot.

I'm sorry to hear that! My father-in-law had covid and pneumonia when he died 4 months ago. Sad stuff.

But the fear narrative and anecodotes aren't enough for me to leave the control group and join the experiment.

Especially for a brand new technology that hasn't even gone through animal testing and the normal 10 year period a traditional vaccine undergoes.

J&J almost killed my wife with a birth control pill. I learned my lesson. That was FDA approved.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
I'll tell you this, however it plays out with this new type of "vaccine", which my understanding is that it masks symptoms but doesn't prevent you from contracting the virus -- I'm glad it's giving you a measure of peace.
Your understanding is flawed. It doesn't mask symptoms. That's what cough syrup and Tylenol does. When you are protected by any of the vaccines, or by natural immunity, your immune system is able to identify the virus the moment your body is exposed to it, and can then eliminate it before it has a chance to multiply and cause you to get sick. This is how your immune system works. Sometimes the virus still manages to make you sick, but on average, you are much less likely to get sick if you've had a vaccination. That means an actual reduction in symptoms and sickness, not just a masking of it.

We simply don't have enough scientific data to say at this point, nor will we, until the long-term effects are known.
We know the vaccines work. They were tested in Phase 1, 2, and 3 trials by the FDA, and approved. The've been delivered to billions of people around the world and have shown themselves to be safe. The dangers of contracting COVID are much more serious than any theoretical dangers of the vaccine. It's a simple cost/risk/benefit calculation to make.
 

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
Your understanding is flawed. It doesn't mask symptoms. That's what cough syrup and Tylenol does. When you are protected by any of the vaccines, or by natural immunity, your immune system is able to identify the virus the moment your body is exposed to it, and can then eliminate it before it has a chance to multiply and cause you to get sick. This is how your immune system works. Sometimes the virus still manages to make you sick, but on average, you are much less likely to get sick if you've had a vaccination. That means an actual reduction in symptoms and sickness, not just a masking of it.


We know the vaccines work. They were tested in Phase 1, 2, and 3 trials by the FDA, and approved. The've been delivered to billions of people around the world and have shown themselves to be safe. The dangers of contracting COVID are much more serious than any theoretical dangers of the vaccine. It's a simple cost/risk/benefit calculation to make.

Yeah! That's great. I wish everyone the best.

I'm not against any vaccine, and frankly, I think anyone should be able to optin to any drug they want. Experimental or not.

As stated previously, I've never had a flu shot, and can't remember the last time I had the flu.

It is impossible for covid19 to harm me statistically, and see no reason to join the experiment. This is the first pandemic in world history where testing is required to confirm you have the disease, and a symptom is "no symtoms".

To each their own! More concerning than the virus (IMO) is the global corporate-state unified reaction to it. Just another reason to sit this one out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: silent and vpance

ManaByte

Member
Jun 10, 2004
44,194
80,180
2,525
California
manabyte.com
Your understanding is flawed. It doesn't mask symptoms. That's what cough syrup and Tylenol does. When you are protected by any of the vaccines, or by natural immunity, your immune system is able to identify the virus the moment your body is exposed to it, and can then eliminate it before it has a chance to multiply and cause you to get sick. This is how your immune system works. Sometimes the virus still manages to make you sick, but on average, you are much less likely to get sick if you've had a vaccination. That means an actual reduction in symptoms and sickness, not just a masking of it.


We know the vaccines work. They were tested in Phase 1, 2, and 3 trials by the FDA, and approved. The've been delivered to billions of people around the world and have shown themselves to be safe. The dangers of contracting COVID are much more serious than any theoretical dangers of the vaccine. It's a simple cost/risk/benefit calculation to make.

Good explanation on how they weren't "rushed" here. Instead of doing steps one after another, they were able to do things simultanously.

 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I have a family member on a ventilator right now dying because they bought into bullshit anit-vax lies like that and wouldn't take the shot.

He said "seems" not "is." It's his personal opinion and a completely valid one. You cannot know the long term effects of something that has not existed for a long term.

"But they were engineered to be safe long-term!" Yes, but you still have to verify that they are working as intended.

I think most of us are hoping beyond all hope that prove to be safe long term, because if they are not, that will likely mean the collapse of human society in many parts of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silent

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
He said "seems" not "is." It's his personal opinion and a completely valid one. You cannot know the long term effects of something that has not existed for a long term.

"But they were engineered to be safe long-term!" Yes, but you still have to verify that they are working as intended.

I think most of us are hoping beyond all hope that prove to be safe long term, because if they are not, that will likely mean the collapse of human society in many parts of the world.

Exactly right. And given that J&J already almost killed my wife with blood clots, for me personally, I'll stick to the control group and see how it plays out.

It's odd that you have no recourse if say in 5 years we find problems with this type of therapy / technology. At least with the birth control blood clotting we were able to sue J&J.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silent
Oct 26, 2018
23,481
33,045
885
Nah -- like in the past, a virus that only results in death for .05%, we shouldn't be apoplectic and just accept that life has dangers, and we're all going to die.

For the old with compounding morbidity, just like influenza or pneumonia, eating healthy and exercise are primary to survival. Look at the death rates for influenza in that group, its similar.

For the 99.9% who covid won't and can't kill, we should go about life like normal.

Mass experimental injections rushed out in 8 months surely seems more dangerous than the above. Not to mention the global corporate voice coming to a crescendo. Something seems odd about it all no?
Exactly. Every report showed old people (around 60 years old and higher) seemed to really skew to getting sick and dying from covid. The younger the age bracket, the less harmful this virus is. Even among school kids who are all grouped together being gross and eating together at lunch at little effect. Out of all the students and schools, how many mass sickness and death spells were there like old age homes. Pretty sure it was zero.

What every country should had done is isolate old people and let the rest of society live their lives as normal. Get those old people isolated and vaccines first.

Yet, every city preferred dong blanket shut downs. Even schools shut down.

Anyone out of a job due to covid sickness or isolation gets handouts to cover them. Everyone else lives normal.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Singular7

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
Are you this cavalier about all phenomena that kills 4 million people in one year?

I'm not sure that # is completely accurate, especially given the CDC change to PCR testing going live in December.

But lets say that is 100% accurate: yes, absolutely.

Cancer and heart disease kill 1000x that number, and Tuberculosis is close to covid. I don't worry about them or seak pre-treatment.

Basically, you'd need to make the case that covid19 was deadly for my age group and level of health, and actually witness it on a daily basis to convince me to join the experiment.

As-such, I so no reason to risk it.

Nutrition is the best weapon, and your own immune system, unless you're on the verge of death anyway. (so say the stats)

Now a Black Death scenario where people are dying around me? Sure, I'll experiment with new technology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: silent

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
It is impossible for covid19 to harm me statistically, and see no reason to join the experiment.
Bad understanding of statistics, and there is a contradiction in this statement.
This is the first pandemic in world history where testing is required to confirm you have the disease, and a symptom is "no symtoms".
No it's not.
More concerning than the virus (IMO) is the global corporate-state unified reaction to it.
The global corporate-static unified reaction to COVID is more concerning to you than 4 million dead people?
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Good explanation on how they weren't "rushed" here. Instead of doing steps one after another, they were able to do things simultanously.


Fucking propaganda minister John Oliver, no thanks.

Nice timing of that one with his fear porn about India. OH MY GOD 400,000 daily COVID cases! World record! What, they have 1.4 billion people? That's over 4x the population of the United States? The US peaked at around 300,000 daily cases? Huh...

I'm guessing he didn't follow up a few weeks later when they brought their cases down to 1/10th of the peak and remain one of the lower countries in the world for both cases and deaths when looked at in proportion to their population despite having a very low vaccination rate.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
You don't know that, or how likely that is.

Of course I don't "know" it. No one can know it until it happens, but if it turns out that there are significant health problems in the mid-to-long term as a result of these things, I don't see the billions of people who took the vaccines just continuing their lives as if nothing happened. There will be hell to pay for governments and various institutes of authority that pushed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Singular7

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
The global corporate-static unified reaction to COVID is more concerning to you than 4 million dead people?

As a student of history, no question.

Millions die yearly from various preventable and non-preventable disease. But hegemonic power with the ability to silence all dissent... that is the real killer of man.

Never ends well!

Take Australia for instance, they've had a handful of death (I believe its just double digits?), but their entire society was turned upside down. Bizarre stuff.

Less people died in 2020 than 2019 I believe.... another "first" for a pandemic. Less people dying in a pandemic year than a non-pandemic year. Very odd.

And now a corporate global hegemon is bribing and using fear to try and get me to join an experiment, which is being promoted by vocal depopulationists? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Really can't make this stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
23,481
33,045
885
As a student of history, no question.

Millions die yearly from various preventable and non-preventable disease. But hegemonic power with the ability to silence all dissent... that is the real killer of man.

Never ends well!

Take Australia for instance, they've had a handful of death (I believe its just double digits?), but their entire society was turned upside down. Bizarre stuff.

Less people died in 2020 than 2019 I believe.... another "first" for a pandemic. Less people dying in a pandemic year than a non-pandemic year. Very odd.

And now a corporate global hegemon is bribing and using fear to try and get me to join an experiment, which is being promoted by vocal depopulationists? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Really can't make this stuff up.
All the covid data being thrown around I wouldnt believe for a second regardless whose it is.

Last year I remember doing global case checks and that entire region of Southeast Asian (Laos, Vietnam etc....). Tons of people. And the grand total number of cases in that whole region was only like 1000.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kev Kev

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
998
2,199
485
All the covid data being thrown around I wouldnt believe for a second regardless whose it is.

Last year I remember doing global case checks and that entire region of Southeast Asian (Laos, Vietnam etc....). Tons of people. And the grand total number of cases in that whole region was only like 1000.

Remember how they initially sold us on this too? The videos of people randomly dying on the streets in China.

The whole thing is just .... fishy.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,722
19,801
1,910
Best Coast
Of course I don't "know" it. No one can know it until it happens, but if it turns out that there are significant health problems in the mid-to-long term as a result of these things, I don't see the billions of people who took the vaccines just continuing their lives as if nothing happened. There will be hell to pay for governments and various institutes of authority that pushed them.
That's a pretty big and ambiguous "if".

The very real consequences of COVID in the here and now are of a much greater concern, in my risk assessment.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
That's a pretty big and ambiguous "if".

The very real consequences of COVID in the here and now are of a much greater concern, in my risk assessment.

Of course it is a big and ambiguous "if," we simply cannot know what hasn't come to pass, and in the case of the currently available vaccines in the west, they are using technologies that have no historical precedent to use for comparison. I certainly don't like the idea of having my cells produce toxic proteins that are targeted by my immune system. It doesn't sit right with me. If it turns out to be a miracle technology with virtually no downsides, then great, I'll change my mind on it and cast my fears aside, but for now? In the face of a disease that statistically barely affects people in my age, sex, and health bracket and appears to be getting less deadly as it evolves? No thanks, I choose not to participate in that experiment, even if it supposedly reduces my risk of death and hospitalization by 90% (taking it from 0.0009% to 0.00009%, and 0.0236% to 0.00236% respectively).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loki
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Are you this cavalier about all phenomena that kills 4 million people in one year?

It's 4.18 million global deaths to date (18+ months in). The official figures were still just shy of 2 million as of January 1st, 2021.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.