Question on Covid19 Vaccine that makes me anxious (1 Viewer)

CollaTech

New member
Local time
Today, 17:14
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
27
are you still worried about the effects of the vaccine even though a lot of people have already been vaccinated?
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
I have a death chance too, and I might want to have an equal shot at it.
If your chance of dying is .02 and someone else's is 2.5, who should get dibs when the initial supply is severely limited? You or the person with 100 times more risk?
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
If your chance of dying is .02 and someone else's is 2.5, who should get dibs when the initial supply is severely limited? You or the person with 100 times more risk?
Well, how was mask wearing handled?
Were people exempted from wearing masks if the potential beneficiaries in the immediate physical area were younger and had less chance of dying?

How are other pharmaceuticals handled which pharmacies routinely run out of, do they prioritize the more vulnerable or do you just walk in and sometimes they have it in stock, sometimes they don't - i.e. first come first serve?

The thing is that in this case with the covid vaccine, a LOOOOOOT of people don't want it. They need to switch methods of prioritization. Instead of them trying to figure out who needs it most, they need to ask who wants it most. The categories and volumes MIGHT even fall into place more naturally that way.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
BCDS (Before Covid derangement syndrome) masks were NOT recommended for healthy people. They were recommended for those already sick or those who are vulnerable. It is the virtue signaling of the left that is imposing mask wearing, not any real medical studies. Social distancing and constant hand washing when interacting with others are the best practices.

I don't know where you live but my understanding is each state has made rules on the distribution and only FIVE are actually prioritizing the most vulnerable. The others are slicing and dicing based on how important you are (hence Congress gets vaccinated) or how likely you are to be exposed (first responders). The "science" indicates that the people who are most likely to die are the ones who should get vaccinated first. If a young, healthy first responder gets COVID, they will almost certainly recover fully in a couple of days and their symptoms probably won't be worse than a mild flu.

For flu vaccines, many doctors order a supply for their most vulnerable patients. Others are first come first served at the pharmacies and walk-in clinics. The flu vaccine is a little different because the pharma companies have to guess which flu strains will be prevalent for any given flu season and concentrate on building vaccines for those. So, if they guess wrong, flu vaccines might be only 30% effective. The people who die from flu also tend to be younger. Flu kills way more children every year than covid and yet we never ever even considered closing down schools for flu season or forcing people to wear masks and social distance. The "science" certainly didn't indicate that children were super spreaders of COVID or that schools were unsafe. Europeans think we're crazy for what we did to our schools.

The Marxists are talking about forcing people to be vaccinated. Next year, you probably won't be able to get on a plane if you haven't been vaccinated. Maybe not a train or a ship either. You are going to need a health history card to travel. Are you looking forward to that imposition on your civil liberties? The Wuhan virus is a dangerous disease for a small percentage of the population. For the rest, it is an inconvenience. The only reason the world shut down was because of the initial really bad models in the UK that predicted a death rate over 10%. The actual average death rate in the US (it is slightly higher around the world) is .199 (an average flu season is between .1 and .2) and dropping which is 500% less than what was predicted and we NEVER reconsidered as the facts came in. Facts don't matter to the left. They go with feelings. I don't know if it was the US leading on this with the Dems pushing all the restrictions because they knew it would be blamed on Trump or if the rest of the world caught BCDS along with us. I'm guessing it was the Dems or the rest of the world would also have shut down their schools.

If the people who are important don't want it, it should take less time to get to the people who would benefit by taking it.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
only FIVE are actually prioritizing the most vulnerable. The others are slicing and dicing based on how important you are (hence Congress gets vaccinated) or how likely you are to be exposed (first responders). The "science" indicates that the people who are most likely to die are the ones who should get vaccinated first. If a young, healthy first responder gets COVID, they will almost certainly recover fully in a couple of days and their symptoms probably won't be worse than a mild flu.
Okay so I am following you, and I see your point, but I can also see the point of the people who settled on the seeming compromise of, we'll try to vaccinate people generally who 1) are most likely to get AND spread it [healthcare workers], and 2) are most likely to suffer badly from it [elderly]

My state is doing both. Healthcare workers and elderly. AZ. Sure, they did one of them slightly before the other, but broadly speaking, both of them are getting very close to 'first dibs' on it. The rest of us are coming distant second.

That doesn't seem so bad to me. Since there is one camp of people who said "vaccinate those who are most likely spreaders FIRST, and that WILL--by definition--help the rest of us, including the elderly".........and another camp of people who said "don't vaccinate anyone first who isn't likely to suffer/die from it; vaccinate the elderly or infirm first", and you can't please everyone.

Seems they compromised by saying OK, we'll do healthcare workers and law enforcement first, then quickly follow that with elderly people. My understanding is my state is already well in to the second phase.

I personally am just waiting until "stocky" people can get it. And I can totally understand those who say, Hey, you chose to be overweight and that shouldn't disenfranchise me! (I have no good answer for them, as I huddle at my computer, waiting giddily to register for that phase). :LOL:
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
The rest of us are coming distant second.
In CT, I'm a distant third out of 4. I'm way too old and I have asthma but that doesn't matter because our governor goes with the "science" whatever that means today.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
In CT, I'm a distant third out of 4. I'm way too old and I have asthma but that doesn't matter because our governor goes with the "science" whatever that means today.
Yikes, that does sound bad. And odd. I mean the way your state is doing it.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
Our state is very woke. Not as woke as Mass though where they are prioritizing criminals.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,849
Our state is very woke. Not as woke as Mass though where they are prioritizing criminals.
Ma. prisons are part of phase 2 in Ma. Ct. Prisons are part of 1b in Ct. 1b is the same as our phase 2. We're just not afraid of saying prisons are congregate settings as are homeless shelters.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
And I am in 1c. Science is whatever the woke governors say it is :sick:
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,970
I just watched this video of Dr Simone Gold. It may help you decide whether you want to risk the vaccine or not.

American Frontline Doctors

 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,849
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:14
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
FWIW, our primary care doctor's office notified us that we would be able to schedule our doses for COVID-19 vaccine, so we are now on their calendar - first dose in Feb/21, second does in Mar/21
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
FWIW, our primary care doctor's office notified us that we would be able to schedule our doses for COVID-19 vaccine, so we are now on their calendar - first dose in Feb/21, second does in Mar/21
That's awesome Doc - I'm glad for you. Eagerly awaiting my turn but it will probably be another month or two
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:14
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,996
Moke, I'm getting VERY tired of your negativity. I have seen studies going each way on hydroxychloroquine. Political (and other) issues have infiltrated the medical community because of their fear of a cutoff of federal funding. Step down off your high horse and recognize this old rule of science: You can take all the experts in the world for a given topic, lay them end-to-end, and STILL not reach a conclusion. You are trying to undercut what I see as a legitimate dispute among experts for which the origin of the dispute isn't completely scientific. This is climate science all over again - where you have to look at the funding of both sides of the argument.

Shall I tell you how I interpret the dispute? Here it is, pure plain and simple: Big Pharma can't make money off of hydroxychloroquine so they have to down-play it with false "technical" articles that are actually shill pieces from folks whose funding comes from Big Pharma. Follow the money.

Do you have an MD? You have not indicated that you do. I don't claim to have an MD but I absolutely DO claim to know how to recognize a scientific dispute when I see one. I very rarely like to pull out the advanced degree, but I'll tell you that your attitude is exactly WHY so many people have serious reluctance to take the actual vaccines. This argument is NOT BEING MANAGED TECHNICALLY. The claims about the ineffectiveness of hydroxycholorquine are MONEY-driven. There are enough positive results reported that it is worth further study, and there is a 20-year-plus history of safe usage in African countries.

You have consistently been posting STRICTLY along knee-jerk liberal party lines rather than considering the possibility of merit in the argument. I say that, not as a moderator, but as a member with an advanced degree who recognizes technical foolishness when I see it. Your post was purely an argumentum ad hominem attack on Dr. Gold. If you know your logic, you know that when you can't legitimately counter an argument, you have to attack the arguer. Well, that tactic works both ways. I dispute the integrity of the nay-sayers. They have been bought off.
 

NauticalGent

Ignore List Poster Boy
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
6,280
Big Pharma can't make money off of hydroxychloroquine so they have to down-play it with false "technical" articles that are actually shill pieces from folks whose funding comes from Big Pharma. Follow the money.
Amen
The claims about the ineffectiveness of hydroxycholorquine are MONEY-driven.
Amen and amen

My own Dr has told me that the anti-bodies I have developed when I contracted COVID are better than any vaccine. Logic: There will be no vaccine for me.
 

NauticalGent

Ignore List Poster Boy
Local time
Today, 05:14
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
6,280
She compares the current suggestion to inoculate blacks first to the Tuskegee experiment
A bit extreme and I sincerely hope not. It would be very hard to pull that off in this day and age I suspect.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
Moke, I'm getting VERY tired of your negativity. I have seen studies going each way on hydroxychloroquine. Political (and other) issues have infiltrated the medical community because of their fear of a cutoff of federal funding. Step down off your high horse and recognize this old rule of science: You can take all the experts in the world for a given topic, lay them end-to-end, and STILL not reach a conclusion. You are trying to undercut what I see as a legitimate dispute among experts for which the origin of the dispute isn't completely scientific. This is climate science all over again - where you have to look at the funding of both sides of the argument.

Shall I tell you how I interpret the dispute? Here it is, pure plain and simple: Big Pharma can't make money off of hydroxychloroquine so they have to down-play it with false "technical" articles that are actually shill pieces from folks whose funding comes from Big Pharma. Follow the money.

Do you have an MD? You have not indicated that you do. I don't claim to have an MD but I absolutely DO claim to know how to recognize a scientific dispute when I see one. I very rarely like to pull out the advanced degree, but I'll tell you that your attitude is exactly WHY so many people have serious reluctance to take the actual vaccines. This argument is NOT BEING MANAGED TECHNICALLY. The claims about the ineffectiveness of hydroxycholorquine are MONEY-driven. There are enough positive results reported that it is worth further study, and there is a 20-year-plus history of safe usage in African countries.

You have consistently been posting STRICTLY along knee-jerk liberal party lines rather than considering the possibility of merit in the argument. I say that, not as a moderator, but as a member with an advanced degree who recognizes technical foolishness when I see it. Your post was purely an argumentum ad hominem attack on Dr. Gold. If you know your logic, you know that when you can't legitimately counter an argument, you have to attack the arguer. Well, that tactic works both ways. I dispute the integrity of the nay-sayers. They have been bought off.
I agree, Doc - there are studies going in all different directions on H.C. Big Pharma hits anything that doesn't make them money HARD.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:14
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,823
Amen

Amen and amen

My own Dr has told me that the anti-bodies I have developed when I contracted COVID are better than any vaccine. Logic: There will be no vaccine for me.
NG, a sincere question, the fact that you possess the covid antibodies will that satisfy the government? Will you be able to enter buildings or fly without a vaccine document in the future. Thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom