NRL. Anti-Vaxers..

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

 

[cochise]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

 

[jirskyr]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

I know of about 5 million families that experienced COVID and someone died. Don't know them personally of course, but it's still a pretty large number.

Why not just get the jab? That's the part I don't get, why take the risk? It is a real risk, realistic and quantifiable. COVID isn't going away. The overwhelming medical consensus is that, if we are talking about "taking chances", you are taking less chances by getting vaccinated than not. Not being vaccinated is MORE risky. I see no argument from a perspective of weighing up risk.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

 

[cochise]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

100% I could have, one of the reason I get the Flu vaccine, this is much deadlier than the flu and is ripping through most of the world. I just find a lot of the anti vaccine arguments to be selfish in the extreme.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

100% I could have, one of the reason I get the Flu vaccine, this is much deadlier then the flu and is ripping through most of the world. I just find a lot of the anti vaccine arguments to be selfish in the extreme.

I don’t agree. It’s not selfish at all. Why should I put something in my body that I don’t feel comfortable with? Who looks after my family if I get an adverse reaction from the vaccine and die? What are you going to do @cochise, tell them at least he wasn’t a selfish person and took the vaccine to save humanity. My wife would rip your head off guaranteed.

 

[cochise]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

100% I could have, one of the reason I get the Flu vaccine, this is much deadlier then the flu and is ripping through most of the world. I just find a lot of the anti vaccine arguments to be selfish in the extreme.

I don’t agree. It’s not selfish at all. Why should I put something in my body that I don’t feel comfortable with? Who looks after my family if I get an adverse reaction from the vaccine and die? What are you going to do @cochise, tell them at least he wasn’t a selfish person and took the vaccine to save humanity. My wife would rip your head off guaranteed.

You are more likely to die from Covid.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

100% I could have, one of the reason I get the Flu vaccine, this is much deadlier then the flu and is ripping through most of the world. I just find a lot of the anti vaccine arguments to be selfish in the extreme.

I don’t agree. It’s not selfish at all. Why should I put something in my body that I don’t feel comfortable with? Who looks after my family if I get an adverse reaction from the vaccine and die? What are you going to do @cochise, tell them at least he wasn’t a selfish person and took the vaccine to save humanity. My wife would rip your head off guaranteed.

You are more likely to die from Covid.

Knowing my luck mate, I would die from the vaccine and COVID would be a walk in the park.

 

[jirskyr]

Who looks after my family if I get an adverse reaction from the vaccine and die

Who looks after your family if COVID gets you?

It's all about total risk, right? I understand you feel uncomfortable about getting a vaccine, the concept of the injection of material into your arm, but it's proven your risk of negative vaccine reaction is much much lower than your risk from COVID. Magnitudes lower.

It would be the same if you said to me that you drive a motorcycle because you don't like cars, even though it is proven that motorcycle riders are at much higher risk of injury than car drivers. And I could understand why you prefer motorcycles, even though myself I think they are too dangerous.

And everything would be fine until one day you get unlucky and have an accident with a car, when the reality of the risk is put to the test, and the motorbike rider is approx 30x more likely to be injured or killed than the car driver.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

No that's exactly wrong, for the reasons I just told you. Science has taken its course. The debate is over on COVID vaccines. I didn't say anything about waiting X amount of time, I said wait for experts to verify individual findings.

COVID vaccines are peer reviewed - more than most products ever are. There's never been so many eyeballs on so few products, we are talking a handful of vaccines and every health authority and virology and vaccine expert on the planet it looking at them, and has been doing so for more than a year.

There have been billions of doses administered and literally billions of people fully vaccinated for many months. BILLIONS, I don't know if people understand how big this number is. If you are going to find safety signals you are going to find it comfortably within billions of administrations.

Again; I am a drug research professional, we typically deal with detectable safety signals in hundreds or thousands of patients, not in the realm of billions. This is in approved medications for all sorts of indications, where typically a couple of hundred or thousand folks get the treatment before it's approved for use. The DURATION of drug research is typically because of the challenges in getting regulatory approvals, logistics of drug supply, finding enough patients, developing protocols, waiting for regulatory review. None of these challenges exist during COVID, everything is fast-tracked and there's literally millions of potential candidates for vaccine studies.

They didn't take short-cuts on the vaccines either, the studies were typical of vaccine research. The overwhelming majority of potential adverse events from vaccines occur very rapidly - it's why they only ask you to hang around 15-30 minutes after your shot, because the serious reactions (typically allergic) will occur quickly.

So if everything was measured and even, sure you could wait for a very very (undefined) long period of time and see what other safety data becomes available. Truth is that's an ever-moving goalpost, because you will never have 100% definitive drug data - it simply does not exist. People can and still do die from taking drugs as "innocuous" as paracetamol. You'd be waiting forever, or taking an arbitrary long amount of time before deciding to "take the plunge".

In the meanwhile, COVID's coming for you and it's arguably not going to wait so long.

Your probably right, but it’s not all doom and gloom. As mentioned before, I know two families that had it and beat it at home without hospitalisation and described it as no worse than the flu. I will take my chances, no need to stress or panic.

You do get that is how these things work? Some people get it and recover, some people get it and die. Issue is if you get it, even if you recover you are likely to pass it onto someone else, who passes it onto someone else. Are you ok with someone further down your chain of transmission contracting this and passing away?

That is what I don't understand about the argument of I will take my chances or I will trust my immune system, it is not just you that you are putting at risk.

With all due respect @cochise, you could have given someone the flu at work, who passed it onto someone, who passed it onto someone else who then died because of it. Can’t live life with what if’s and hypotheticals.

100% I could have, one of the reason I get the Flu vaccine, this is much deadlier then the flu and is ripping through most of the world. I just find a lot of the anti vaccine arguments to be selfish in the extreme.

I don’t agree. It’s not selfish at all. Why should I put something in my body that I don’t feel comfortable with? Who looks after my family if I get an adverse reaction from the vaccine and die? What are you going to do @cochise, tell them at least he wasn’t a selfish person and took the vaccine to save humanity. My wife would rip your head off guaranteed.

You are more likely to die from Covid.

Knowing my luck mate, I would die from the vaccine and COVID would be a walk in the park.

When will people finally realise that Covid is not a walk in the park

 

[tbones10]

What I don't get is if someone is crook they go to the doctors to get well, if they have a broken limb, again they trust the same doctor to fix things. Yet the same physician tells them getting vaccinated is the safest option, they know better or trust the internet over the same doctor that has healed them. I just don't get it.

 

[barra]

We hear so much from the anti-vaxx about their 'rights'.

I'd rather be hearing them talk about their responsibilities...

Anyway, did we find out who the Tigers player is that's not jabbed?

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

What I don't get is if someone is crook they go to the doctors to get well, if they have a broken limb, again they trust the same doctor to fix things. Yet the same physician tells them getting vaccinated is the safest option, they know better or trust the internet over the same doctor that has healed them. I just don't get it.

Different doctors have different views about the vaccine. That’s the problem. Even nurses have different views. It’s not as clear cut as it seems

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

We hear so much from the anti-vaxx about their 'rights'.

I'd rather be hearing them talk about their responsibilities...

Anyway, did we find out who the Tigers player is that's not jabbed?

Responsibility? I have a responsibility to my own health and body first champ. I’m not putting anything in my body I’m not comfortable with to appease society.

 

[barra]

I think putting yourself before your own family, let alone your community is more selfishness than responsibility?

 

[Geo]

Well any NRL players change their stance..?

 

[earl]

When will people finally realise that Covid is not a walk in the park

The biggest problem with COVID is that something like 80% of people will be fine. This stat means the majority of people who get it will be fine. So the anti-vaccine crowd will often be right.

I have extended family with all the crazy anti-vaccine arguments. It went through their family. They were really sick. No one died. They win.

There is no way I would take that risk with my life or my families. To me it's bonkers.

 

[Odessa]

That’s the study @odessa is talking about

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/

That's the abstract, not the full text. Here is full text:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8538446/

You need to be very careful with these studies - it's in vitro for starters (done outside the body, in a lab) and if you read the Discussion it's chock-full of qualifiers - "we propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may...", "our findings also imply". This is true of most studies, it's not a specific criticism of this work.

The proper path of science occurs when other groups peer review the research and attempt to verify / validate / repeat it. If they can do this, the research gains momentum like a snowball - more reviews, more consensus, more and broader research. Other experts have to be able to repeat the findings independently. And then once you gain some consensus in the expert community, that's when you act on a research outcome.

You can't just post the paper, quote Dr Youtube and then say "see told you it's dangerous". That's not how Science works.

Unfortunately the world has changed where laypersons review medical research papers and become concerned about single reports from single sources. That's not how research is supposed to work, and before COVID 99% of non-scientists never read research papers and didn't have any idea what pubmed or Nature or Lancet was. I don't understand why non-medics are reviewing these complicated papers.

That’s why I’m in no rush to get vaccinated. Let science take its course and allow more research to be done. If something like this is proven to be true, you would be nuts to get the vaccine

Is it still true that it's still in the trial stage till 2023 and if so can they just stop giving the vaccine and don't have to give a reason to why they stop ?

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

I think putting yourself before your own family, let alone your community is more selfishness than responsibility?

Wrong again. Wife is exempt, kids too young to be vaxxed (thank god).

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

I think putting yourself before your own family, let alone your community is more selfishness than responsibility?

Wrong again. Wife is exempt, kids too young to be vaxxed (thank god).

You just proved what he was saying in this context.