NRL. Anti-Vaxers..

[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).

You just proved what he was saying in this context.

Yes mate, I am putting my own health first and foremost. Others can play with the vaccine. My choice.

 

[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.

Yes mate, I am putting my own health first and foremost. Others can play with the vaccine. My choice.

Yes it is your choice and you have clearly made it. As others have made there’s. Good luck with your life.

 

[tig_prmz]

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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.

 

[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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.m

If COVID mutates and has a mortality rate of like 50 percent, then maybe the risk of the vaccine is worth it

 

[jirskyr]

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

This is a silly argument and it's not how science works. I come from a medical family. A good example of how you don't trust doctor is Charlie Teo. I also have a mate who is a doctor. You want to know what my mate and my parents think of Charlie Teo - the guy is a moron. He recommends surgery that isn't going to help.

I agree with Earl, it's not a logical argument. You aren't going to find any topic where there is 100% agreement. Some people still don't think America landed people on the moon, or the Earth is flat.

If there are a million doctors in the world (a guess) and say 0.5% of them don't believe in the COVID vaccines, that would be 5,000 doctors who are not in favour of the vaccine. And you could conceivably look around, in the age of social media opinions, and find one of those 5,000 doctors, and say "here is a fellow who doesn't think the vaccine is good, and he has other associates who agree with him".

And that would be dandy, except you've ignored the 995,000 doctors, the 99.5% who do support the vaccine. And you would be siding with the overwhelming minority of medical thought. There are "doctors" who recommend all sorts of baloney in treatment, and there are charlatans and fraudsters and quacks. Being a doctor does not make someone, independently, the start and finish of the only valid opinion.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

You said that, but why are you not comfortable with putting the vaccine in your body? Please tell me you have never had a beer or taken drugs in your life, to at least be consistent in your argument.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

Well if that is the top of our worries, then we are doing OK.

Could you imagine if COVID was 50% fatal, or killed children at a much higher rate than adults? There would be far far more to worry about than the fringe < 5% anti-vaxxers.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

These vaccines have been the most scrutinised in our time. Never has there been so much public attention on a vaccine.

 

[jirskyr]

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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

 

[jirskyr]

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 ?

No it's not true, the vaccines passed the first trial stages. If you are asking whether they are still under study, the answer is yes. But people need to understand that all drugs are under permanent study; the drug companies are compelled by law to continue to collect safety data on their medications, forever. No drug is 100% safe and never will be. Even water isn't 100% safe.

 

[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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

Well mate, go get your kids vaxxed. No one is touching mine

 

[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.

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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.

If COVID mutates and has a mortality rate of like 50 percent, then maybe the risk of the vaccine is worth it

50% is an arbitrary number. Why not 25% or 10%? The approximated mortality rate for COVID is already 1-2% globally, and the mortality rate for vaccines is much much lower.

And what is "the risk of the vaccine"?

 

[jirskyr]

These vaccines have been the most scrutinised in our time. Never has there been so much public attention on a vaccine.

On any drug, not just vaccines. You are barely going to find any medication in the world that will administer 4 or 5 billion doses in 12 months. The volume of data is almost beyond reckoning.

 

[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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.

If COVID mutates and has a mortality rate of like 50 percent, then maybe the risk of the vaccine is worth it

50% is an arbitrary number. Why not 25% or 10%? The approximated mortality rate for COVID is already 1-2% globally, and the mortality rate for vaccines is much much lower.

And what is "the risk of the vaccine"?

The vaccine has no side effects. Nothing to do with the heart and clotting. Sorry, I forgot

 

[jirskyr]

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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

Well mate, go get your kids vaxxed. No one is touching mine

I will for certain. They've already been vaccinated for all the other conditions, COVID will be another. Did your kids get the other jabs - measles, mumps etc?

 

[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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

Well mate, go get your kids vaxxed. No one is touching mine

I will for certain. They've already been vaccinated for all the other conditions, COVID will be another. Did your kids get the other jabs - measles, mumps etc?

I hope your kids don’t get any of the side effects and die mate. You will be beside yourself and will hate your decision. COVID has a minimal effect on kids

 

[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.

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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.

If COVID mutates and has a mortality rate of like 50 percent, then maybe the risk of the vaccine is worth it

50% is an arbitrary number. Why not 25% or 10%? The approximated mortality rate for COVID is already 1-2% globally, and the mortality rate for vaccines is much much lower.

And what is "the risk of the vaccine"?

The vaccine has no side effects. Nothing to do with the heart and clotting. Sorry, I forgot

That's not a helpful remark, obviously. We all know the vaccines have potential side effects, question is about risk. Driving a car has risk, but you don't take all the cars off the road because someone had an accident.

 

[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.

I agree that you should not put anything in your body that you don't approve. But you mentioned in your other post that a family you know got it and said it was a walk in the park. The reason everyone is going to be nagging you about this is that you could get it and he a walk in the park for you but the person you pass it off to, it may kill them... Even if they are vaccinated.

Yes it's not 100% but you're more likely to die from COVID than from the Vax. You're more likely to kill someone from COVID too. I don't think you're being selfish at all but I think you're twisting the facts around to come to the conclusion that you came to a long time ago.

As I mentioned in another thread, you've already come to a conclusion and you're not going to budge, but hopefully someone else who reads this and is confused may change their stance.

If COVID mutates and has a mortality rate of like 50 percent, then maybe the risk of the vaccine is worth it

50% is an arbitrary number. Why not 25% or 10%? The approximated mortality rate for COVID is already 1-2% globally, and the mortality rate for vaccines is much much lower.

And what is "the risk of the vaccine"?

The vaccine has no side effects. Nothing to do with the heart and clotting. Sorry, I forgot

That's not a helpful remark, obviously. We all know the vaccines have potential side effects, question is about risk. Driving a car has risk, but you don't take all the cars off the road because someone had an accident.

Acknowledged mate. Sorry about the sarcastic comment earlier.

 

[jirskyr]

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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

Well mate, go get your kids vaxxed. No one is touching mine

I will for certain. They've already been vaccinated for all the other conditions, COVID will be another. Did your kids get the other jabs - measles, mumps etc?

I hope your kids don’t get any of the side effects and die mate. You will be beside yourself and will hate your decision. COVID has a minimal effect on kids

Vaccines are reported to have have minimal negative effects on kids too. The CDC in the US estimates approx 700 children aged 18 or younger have died from COVID - do you seriously believe 700 American children will be killed by the vaccine?

No, if my kids get side effects from a jab I will be both upset and also accepting of it. I develop drugs for a living, I understand the risk factors better than most people. You follow the lowest-risk path with the greatest benefit for yourself, your family and the community. On all counts (self, family, community) it means vaccination. The mathematics of it are undeniable. There are risks of side effects, as there are with every drug in existence, but the risks of the vaccine in all approved age groups are far lower than the risk of COVID. If the TGA decides there is unacceptable or unnecessary risk for children, they won't approve the COVID vaccines for kids - it's a pretty straightforward process; the people at the TGA have kids too.

But you won't answer my question for some reason - are your kids vaccinated against other non-COVID conditions? The standard ones they get when they are kids.

 

[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).

Give it another few months and your kids won't be too young any more.

Out of curiosity are your kids vaxxed against the other normal conditions - measles, mumps, rubella etc?

Well mate, go get your kids vaxxed. No one is touching mine

I will for certain. They've already been vaccinated for all the other conditions, COVID will be another. Did your kids get the other jabs - measles, mumps etc?

I hope your kids don’t get any of the side effects and die mate. You will be beside yourself and will hate your decision. COVID has a minimal effect on kids

Vaccines are reported to have have minimal negative effects on kids too. The CDC in the US estimates approx 700 children aged 18 or younger have died from COVID - do you seriously believe 700 American children will be killed by the vaccine?

No, if my kids get side effects from a jab I will be both upset and also accepting of it. I develop drugs for a living, I understand the risk factors better than most people. You follow the lowest-risk path with the greatest benefit for yourself, your family and the community. On all counts (self, family, community) it means vaccination. The mathematics of it are undeniable. There are risks of side effects, as there are with every drug in existence, but the risks of the vaccine in all approved age groups are far lower than the risk of COVID. If the TGA decides there is unacceptable or unnecessary risk for children, they won't approve the COVID vaccines for kids - it's a pretty straightforward process; the people at the TGA have kids too.

But you won't answer my question for some reason - are your kids vaccinated against other non-COVID conditions? The standard ones they get when they are kids.

Sorry mate, yes. Except we are not doing the 4th year vax for my ASD one. He went back to back vaccine with his previous and it
Screwed him right up. He regressed