To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate

[Jersey mike]

There’s no real detail here, it’s more of a PR article but it does seem J&J is getting close to checkered flag with their vaccine. At this point every little bit helps I guess.


Johnson & Johnson says COVID vaccine data is coming early next week

https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/01/johnson-johnson-says-covid-vaccine-data-is-coming-early-next-week.html

[98valk]

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/01/26/health-care-worker-dies-after-second-dose-of-covid-vaccine-investigations-underway/

[Bret SD]

I suppose this thread could be considered the anti-vax thread, we already have a largely pro-vax thread.

So far I've seen some pretty good questions posed as to why one would want to risk taking the new 'vaccine' that isn't actually/really a vaccine. I've also seen some pro-vaxers post in this thread, and not with any counter arguments.. at all.   

I'm open to being convinced, so if you got it.. Bring it on.. so far the only good reason I can see for taking the vaccine is if you are old, frail, and/or have severe comorbidities that would put you more at risk. Beyond that I don't see the logic.

Maybe it's just a placebo for the masses? Maybe it's just part of setting us up for a lifetime of masking, distancing and an endless parade a 'vaccines' to fight the next iteration of the virus. Maybe it's just one big gigantic psyop, who knows? All I know is these days, asking questions like this will quickly get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist.   

I'm honestly so sick of the constant us vs them intruding on every facet of our lives.  Now we're labeled anti-vax or pro-vax, based on this one vaccine?  I vehemently disagree that the "other" thread is pro-vax.  It started as a simple poll, "will you take the vaccine?"  Both sides of the question are well represented in that thread, as well as some people that weren't sure or asked questions.  I don't see any reason this post warranted a new thread on the same topic.

We are continually bombarded with so much BS; to the point that no one knows what or who to believe anymore.  It bothers me that the numbers have been exaggerated, but it equally bothers me when the impact of the disease is understated.  Personally, I do my own investigating... and that does not mean from the news media, partisan sites, social platforms, google or duck-duck-go.  Actual peer-reviewed research and articles are available to anyone who cares to find them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... getting the vaccine is a personal choice.  If you want it, get it.  If you don't want it, then don't get it.  It's really that simple. 

I used *-vax as a simple shortcut, not a label.. that's where this medium is tough to communicate in, meanings are often misconstrued through no fault of the author of the reader. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the author when reading posts that they are well meaning.

Peer reviewed studies may still be the gold standard, but that mantle has slipped in recent years due to politics and bias. Personally I trust no source completely, including peer reviewed studies and scientific journals. As I've said before, I go to many, many sources for information and find nuggets of useful information.

We're here discussing the vaccine, that's all.. I don't understand how that's a problem, after all we're all adults and this is a discussion board.

[Bret SD]

If this doesn't convince you I'm not sure what possibly could:

"The trial began on July 27, 2020, and enrolled 30,420 adult volunteers at clinical research sites across the United States. Volunteers were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either two 100 microgram (mcg) doses of the investigational vaccine or two shots of saline placebo 28 days apart. The average age of volunteers is 51 years. Approximately 47% are female, 25% are 65 years or older and 17% are under the age of 65 with medical conditions placing them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. Approximately 79% of participants are white, 10% are Black or African American, 5% are Asian, 0.8% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.2% are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 2% are multiracial, and 21% (of any race) are Hispanic or Latino.

From the start of the trial through Nov. 25, 2020, investigators recorded 196 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 occurring among participants at least 14 days after they received their second shot. One hundred and eighty-five cases (30 of which were classified as severe COVID-19) occurred in the placebo group and 11 cases (0 of which were classified as severe COVID-19) occurred in the group receiving mRNA-1273. The incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 94.1% lower in those participants who received mRNA-1273 as compared to those receiving placebo.

Although mRNA-1273 is highly efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, there is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Preliminary trial data suggests there may be some degree of prevention of asymptomatic infection after a single dose. Additional analyses are underway of the incidence of asymptomatic infection and viral shedding post-infection to understand the vaccine’s impact on infectiousness."

(Emphasis added by me)

Summary, equal numbers of vaccinated vs placebo people, the incidence of getting symptomatic C19 was 94.1% lower among the vaccinated, and the incidence of getting severe C19 was 100% lower.

Source - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

And once again, I know I'm sounding like a broken record but wanna make sure I'm not misunderestimated - I'm NOT in favor of mask mandates, not in favor of government lockdowns, not in favor of vaccination mandates. I do wish each and every one of you, whom I consider my friends, would get vaccinated at the earliest opportunity you can, as I consider ya'll my friends and want the best for you. But I'm not in favor of forcing that on anyone.

Thank you Serk, I appreciate this.. I have seen this study and it is entered into my vaccine calculus, however there are still more questions than answers re efficacy of the current crop of vaccines.

In my mind that's only a part of the equation, even if the vaccine was proven to be 100% effective by every marker at preventing covid infection (which it's not even close) there still remains the question of side effects both short term and long term.

Survival rates for covid are very close to flu rates, and we still can't get good information on this. I'm not hyperventilating and hand wringing over any of it. Too much scaremongering and misinformation has clouded this CCP bug, and I don't trust.. anything at this point.

[Bret SD]

you have much more faith in CDC information than I do my friend

Well, we're even, cause you have much more faith in NVIC information than I do.

When you try to cross check today's dramatic main headline "A Man and Woman
in South Dakota Die a Day After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines" you find...

When working with medical providers and coroners involved with the
two instances, COVID-19 or the vaccine wasn’t cited as the cause of
death for either individual.

I'll pass on the NVIC's  Jeff Schwartz, Barbara Loe Fisher, and Kathi Williams,
and you can pass on the CDC's  1700 scientists, working in more than 200
cutting-edge laboratories across the USA...

We both like Valkyries 

-Mike

Mike you assume too much, as I've said over and over I trust no source completely, and some none at all. You seem to want to put me in the conspiracy or quack box.. then you like to throw a jab before you run back into your perceived ivory tower of legitimacy and superiority. I'm telling you I look to your tower for info, and I look many other places. Please stop trying to de-legitimize me with this strategy.

And yes, we do like Valkyries 

[hubcapsc]

I trust no source completely

I completely distrust some sources.

Please stop trying to de-legitimize me with this strategy.

You are doing a good job of not being disrespectful, that is
why I think this is a good thread to participate in.

-Mike

[Bret SD]

I trust no source completely

I completely distrust some sources.

Please stop trying to de-legitimize me with this strategy.

You are doing a good job of not being disrespectful, that is
why I think this is a good thread to participate in.

-Mike

#Metoo 

[Chrisj CMA]

How many shots will we need. I just watched Joe Biden say twice (he repeated himself to be very clear). He said 600 million shots will be enough to fully vaccinate 300 Americans.

Now, I can use simple math and most likely figure out what he meant to say but folks,  the man is serving as president of the United States for gosh sakes.

https://twitter.com/ladyredwave/status/1354825244012204034?s=21

[f6gal]

I suppose this thread could be considered the anti-vax thread, we already have a largely pro-vax thread.

So far I've seen some pretty good questions posed as to why one would want to risk taking the new 'vaccine' that isn't actually/really a vaccine. I've also seen some pro-vaxers post in this thread, and not with any counter arguments.. at all.  

I'm open to being convinced, so if you got it.. Bring it on.. so far the only good reason I can see for taking the vaccine is if you are old, frail, and/or have severe comorbidities that would put you more at risk. Beyond that I don't see the logic.

Maybe it's just a placebo for the masses? Maybe it's just part of setting us up for a lifetime of masking, distancing and an endless parade a 'vaccines' to fight the next iteration of the virus. Maybe it's just one big gigantic psyop, who knows? All I know is these days, asking questions like this will quickly get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist.    

I'm honestly so sick of the constant us vs them intruding on every facet of our lives.  Now we're labeled anti-vax or pro-vax, based on this one vaccine?  I vehemently disagree that the "other" thread is pro-vax.  It started as a simple poll, "will you take the vaccine?"  Both sides of the question are well represented in that thread, as well as some people that weren't sure or asked questions.  I don't see any reason this post warranted a new thread on the same topic.

We are continually bombarded with so much BS; to the point that no one knows what or who to believe anymore.  It bothers me that the numbers have been exaggerated, but it equally bothers me when the impact of the disease is understated.  Personally, I do my own investigating... and that does not mean from the news media, partisan sites, social platforms, google or duck-duck-go.  Actual peer-reviewed research and articles are available to anyone who cares to find them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... getting the vaccine is a personal choice.  If you want it, get it.  If you don't want it, then don't get it.  It's really that simple.  

I used *-vax as a simple shortcut, not a label.. that's where this medium is tough to communicate in, meanings are often misconstrued through no fault of the author of the reader. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the author when reading posts that they are well meaning.
...
We're here discussing the vaccine, that's all.. I don't understand how that's a problem, after all we're all adults and this is a discussion board.

It's not the discussion that was my issue, it was the setting up of yet another us vs them.  A short 2 hours after the OP, you proclaimed this "could be considered the anti-vax thread," as opposed to the existing "largely pro-vax thread" (which was a complete mischaracterization).  To emphasize your point, you went on to pat anti-vaxers on the back with their "good questions" and slight "pro-vaxers" for lack of "any counter arguments.. at all."  Yep, all that between 0730 and 0930 (AZ time).  So, never mind that some people still go to work every day and can't necessarily respond within minutes or even hours.

Peer reviewed studies may still be the gold standard, but that mantle has slipped in recent years due to politics and bias.

There's no such thing as a completely unbiased study/report.  There never has been and never will be.  It's impossible to totally eliminate researcher/author bias.  That's one of the primary reasons for peer review.

As I've said before, I go to many, many sources for information and find nuggets of useful information.

This statement sounds like you're shopping for nuggets of information that support what you already believe.  We all do that to some extent; but some more than others.

P.S.  I have many good friends that do not want to risk the vaccine.  They are not necessarily anti-vaxxers.  They're just not on-board with this particular vaccine.  We're still good friends.  I know their position, they know mine... we don't have to beat each other up with it every day.  And, just for the record, I don't believe the vaccine is risk-free.  But, for me, the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.

[98valk]

Quote
Peer reviewed studies may still be the gold standard, but that mantle has slipped in recent years due to politics and bias.

There's no such thing as a completely unbiased study/report.  There never has been and never will be.  It's impossible to totally eliminate researcher/author bias.  That's one of the primary reasons for peer review.



big money talks, even peer reviewed are skewed today. they have agendas also.

[Rams]

It's not the discussion that was my issue, it was the setting up of yet another us vs them.  A short 2 hours after the OP, you proclaimed this "could be considered the anti-vax thread," as opposed to the existing "largely pro-vax thread" (which was a complete mischaracterization).  To emphasize your point, you went on to pat anti-vaxers on the back with their "good questions" and slight "pro-vaxers" for lack of "any counter arguments.. at all."  Yep, all that between 0730 and 0930 (AZ time).  So, never mind that some people still go to work every day and can't necessarily respond within minutes or even hours.

Or, it could be that those on the other side of the discussion have given up trying to get along or debate the issue.   The latter applies to me.   I really don't care if a person decides to get the vaccine or not, I consider it their decision.   I do care if they follow CDC guidelines but, I can't force anyone to do so, I simply back away from those who don't either care or simply refuse to get with the program.   

It is what it is.   There are no perfect answers.   I've been told that Maderna is trying to produce and test a vaccine meant to deal with the mutated versions of COVID, I want to  be first in line to help with the research study.   Is there a risk?   Damn right there is but, as Connie said, it's worth it to me.
Regardless of how it turns out, they'll (we'll) learn from it.

Rams

[f6gal]

Quote
Peer reviewed studies may still be the gold standard, but that mantle has slipped in recent years due to politics and bias.

There's no such thing as a completely unbiased study/report.  There never has been and never will be.  It's impossible to totally eliminate researcher/author bias.  That's one of the primary reasons for peer review.

bid money talks, even peer reviewed are skewed today. they have agendas also.

If you say so.   Peer reviewers are intentionally not from the same pool.  The process it rather intense.  Have you been through it?

[Bret SD]

I suppose this thread could be considered the anti-vax thread, we already have a largely pro-vax thread.

So far I've seen some pretty good questions posed as to why one would want to risk taking the new 'vaccine' that isn't actually/really a vaccine. I've also seen some pro-vaxers post in this thread, and not with any counter arguments.. at all.  

I'm open to being convinced, so if you got it.. Bring it on.. so far the only good reason I can see for taking the vaccine is if you are old, frail, and/or have severe comorbidities that would put you more at risk. Beyond that I don't see the logic.

Maybe it's just a placebo for the masses? Maybe it's just part of setting us up for a lifetime of masking, distancing and an endless parade a 'vaccines' to fight the next iteration of the virus. Maybe it's just one big gigantic psyop, who knows? All I know is these days, asking questions like this will quickly get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist.    

I'm honestly so sick of the constant us vs them intruding on every facet of our lives.  Now we're labeled anti-vax or pro-vax, based on this one vaccine?  I vehemently disagree that the "other" thread is pro-vax.  It started as a simple poll, "will you take the vaccine?"  Both sides of the question are well represented in that thread, as well as some people that weren't sure or asked questions.  I don't see any reason this post warranted a new thread on the same topic.

We are continually bombarded with so much BS; to the point that no one knows what or who to believe anymore.  It bothers me that the numbers have been exaggerated, but it equally bothers me when the impact of the disease is understated.  Personally, I do my own investigating... and that does not mean from the news media, partisan sites, social platforms, google or duck-duck-go.  Actual peer-reviewed research and articles are available to anyone who cares to find them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... getting the vaccine is a personal choice.  If you want it, get it.  If you don't want it, then don't get it.  It's really that simple.  

I used *-vax as a simple shortcut, not a label.. that's where this medium is tough to communicate in, meanings are often misconstrued through no fault of the author of the reader. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the author when reading posts that they are well meaning.
...
We're here discussing the vaccine, that's all.. I don't understand how that's a problem, after all we're all adults and this is a discussion board.

It's not the discussion that was my issue, it was the setting up of yet another us vs them.  A short 2 hours after the OP, you proclaimed this "could be considered the anti-vax thread," as opposed to the existing "largely pro-vax thread" (which was a complete mischaracterization).  To emphasize your point, you went on to pat anti-vaxers on the back with their "good questions" and slight "pro-vaxers" for lack of "any counter arguments.. at all."  Yep, all that between 0730 and 0930 (AZ time).  So, never mind that some people still go to work every day and can't necessarily respond within minutes or even hours.

Peer reviewed studies may still be the gold standard, but that mantle has slipped in recent years due to politics and bias.

There's no such thing as a completely unbiased study/report.  There never has been and never will be.  It's impossible to totally eliminate researcher/author bias.  That's one of the primary reasons for peer review.

As I've said before, I go to many, many sources for information and find nuggets of useful information.

This statement sounds like you're shopping for nuggets of information that support what you already believe.  We all do that to some extent; but some more than others.

P.S.  I have many good friends that do not want to risk the vaccine.  They are not necessarily anti-vaxxers.  They're just not on-board with this particular vaccine.  We're still good friends.  I know their position, they know mine... we don't have to beat each other up with it every day.  And, just for the record, I don't believe the vaccine is risk-free.  But, for me, the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.

I've said before I'm not an 'anti-vaxer', I'm just not onboard with these CV-19 vaccines. I explained earlier that 'anti-vaxer' is something I chose (maybe poorly) as a shortcut for 'those who don't want to take the vaccine'.. same for pro.

I didn't start the thread nor did I 'set up an us vs them' that didn't already exist. It's a debate, there are two sides in a debate. Everyone posting prior to you seemed to understand it that way and the thread was going along smoothly and respectfully.

Bias is everywhere, and peer reviewed studies, if reviewed by persons with the same agenda (usually political) bias is a reality whether we like it or not. There are no ivory towers.

Did I understate the disease? No

I said I looked for useful nuggets of info in many places,  you then said " sounds like you're shopping for nuggets of information that support what you already believe.  We all do that to some extent; but some more than others." Why do you feel the need to say this? Because I disagree with you? Do you think you're superior to those who disagree with you? The statement you made was purposefully denigrating to me when you added 'some more than others'. It's as though you're irritated by the fact  that I have the nerve to disagree with you, and that I'm a low information cretin.

In your closing statement you 'hinted' that I was setting up an environment where we're 'beating each other up over it'. Sorry, not true.

Your whole comment stream drips with irritation and annoyance that I'm here and disagreeing with you, which is ironic in that you and I are probably 95% in agreement on most of this stuff from what I've read on it to date.

[Patrick]

3 friends that have been scared to death [ literally] of the chinese flu went and had their shots 2 days ago. We thought they would be fine and glad to go out to diner tonight. Not so, they are still afraid. Must be the shots need time to 'break-in'.

[Serk]

3 friends that have been scared to death [ literally] of the chinese flu went and had their shots 2 days ago. We thought they would be fine and glad to go out to diner tonight. Not so, they are still afraid. Must be the shots need time to 'break-in'.

Correct. For the Moderna shot it takes ~10-14 days to have any immunity, around 50% or so, and about 2 weeks after the 2nd shot to get the full ~95% immunity.

[Moonshot_1]

Well, what exactly are we trying to vaccinate ourselves against?

I'm not really sure.

Is it a virus that will culminate in a mass extinction event if we don't vaccinate?
Kind of seems like that sometimes.

Or is this a virus with a 99% recovery rate. In which case, would the vaccine do more harm or be more risky than if not used at all?

The sad state of affairs is how this has been politicized for the last year.

Stupid rules and regulations adding to the confusion.

You got to wear a mask to enter a restaurant but you can take it off when seated. How the hell does that work?

Masks are not necessary, then you have to wear a mask, and now you should wear 2.

Shut off water fountains but keep public toilets open with no restrictions at all. Really?

You are safe in a bar till 9pm. After that the virus must come out and try to get into bars?

The crazy list of Covid regs are stupid.

But let us put our blind trust in the vaccine.

For many, this is the salvation they been waiting for. They see it as the end game for Covid.

For me, I don't see the need to get a vaccine against a virus with a 95%+ recovery rate.
But, I am going to assume that employment requirements, and insurance requirements will compel me to get one.

This entire exercise has served a purpose. It has shown our political system how to easily manipulate the people.

[f6gal]

I debated if I should even respond to this, but here goes.

I've said before I'm not an 'anti-vaxer', I'm just not onboard with these CV-19 vaccines. I explained earlier that 'anti-vaxer' is something I chose (maybe poorly) as a shortcut for 'those who don't want to take the vaccine'.. same for pro.

That's unfortunate, because the inaccurate labeling was one of the primary motivators for my initial post.  Yes, you explained after the fact, but I had already responded.

I didn't start the thread nor did I 'set up an us vs them' that didn't already exist. It's a debate, there are two sides in a debate. Everyone posting prior to you seemed to understand it that way and the thread was going along smoothly and respectfully.

Was it though?  If going along so well, why did you accuse the "pro-vaxers" of not having "any counter arguments.. at all"?  This appeared to be an effort to bait your opponents.  When perhaps, as Rams stated, "those on the other side of the discussion have given up trying to get along or debate the issue." I also didn't understand you making that accusation when there had been so little time to respond.   

Bias is everywhere, and peer reviewed studies, if reviewed by persons with the same agenda (usually political) bias is a reality whether we like it or not. There are no ivory towers.

One of the primary reasons for peer review is to weed out author/researcher bias.   

Did I understate the disease? No

I did not accuse you of that.

Do you think you're superior to those who disagree with you?

Wow.  This is so far from accurate that I don't even know how to respond.

The statement you made was purposefully denigrating to me when you added 'some more than others'. It's as though you're irritated by the fact  that I have the nerve to disagree with you, and that I'm a low information cretin.

I can only say you read way more into those 4 words than was intended.  As you've said, context can be difficult in this medium.  Perhaps your own advice is warranted here.

In your closing statement you 'hinted' that I was setting up an environment where we're 'beating each other up over it'. Sorry, not true.

I'm afraid you read too much into that as well.  I was alluding to our forum continually beating each other up over this. 

Your whole comment stream drips with irritation and annoyance that I'm here and disagreeing with you,

You're right, I was irritated, but it had absolutely nothing to do with you disagreeing with me.  First, I was irritated to see yet another C-19/C-19 vaccine thread.  We already have 2 going, isn't that enough?  We're going from loading up the front page with politics to loading up it up with COVID (which is kind of ironic, since medicine has now turned political).  Perhaps you were not the proper target for my frustration, but when you proclaimed it the anti-vax thread vs the pro-vax thread and accused the "other side" of not having any good arguments... well, that's where I landed.  I guarantee, if someone with whom I agree had made similar statements, I would have been equally annoyed. 

which is ironic in that you and I are probably 95% in agreement on most of this stuff from what I've read on it to date.

Actually, the percentage probably exceeds 95. 

As an aside, I have never tried to convince anyone here to get the vaccine or to make them feel their life is in more peril by not getting it.  I completely understand the skepticism.  Of course, there are risks in taking it; there are also risks in not taking it.  The decision is a personal one; depending on each person's health, age, and circumstances, they will make that decision.  I just wish everyone would respect that. 

[Bret SD]

I debated if I should even respond to this, but here goes.

I've said before I'm not an 'anti-vaxer', I'm just not onboard with these CV-19 vaccines. I explained earlier that 'anti-vaxer' is something I chose (maybe poorly) as a shortcut for 'those who don't want to take the vaccine'.. same for pro.

That's unfortunate, because the inaccurate labeling was one of the primary motivators for my initial post.  Yes, you explained after the fact, but I had already responded.

I didn't start the thread nor did I 'set up an us vs them' that didn't already exist. It's a debate, there are two sides in a debate. Everyone posting prior to you seemed to understand it that way and the thread was going along smoothly and respectfully.

Was it though?  If going along so well, why did you accuse the "pro-vaxers" of not having "any counter arguments.. at all"?  This appeared to be an effort to bait your opponents.  When perhaps, as Rams stated, "those on the other side of the discussion have given up trying to get along or debate the issue." I also didn't understand you making that accusation when there had been so little time to respond.   

Bias is everywhere, and peer reviewed studies, if reviewed by persons with the same agenda (usually political) bias is a reality whether we like it or not. There are no ivory towers.

One of the primary reasons for peer review is to weed out author/researcher bias.   

Did I understate the disease? No

I did not accuse you of that.

Do you think you're superior to those who disagree with you?

Wow.  This is so far from accurate that I don't even know how to respond.

The statement you made was purposefully denigrating to me when you added 'some more than others'. It's as though you're irritated by the fact  that I have the nerve to disagree with you, and that I'm a low information cretin.

I can only say you read way more into those 4 words than was intended.  As you've said, context can be difficult in this medium.  Perhaps your own advice is warranted here.

In your closing statement you 'hinted' that I was setting up an environment where we're 'beating each other up over it'. Sorry, not true.

I'm afraid you read too much into that as well.  I was alluding to our forum continually beating each other up over this. 

Your whole comment stream drips with irritation and annoyance that I'm here and disagreeing with you,

You're right, I was irritated, but it had absolutely nothing to do with you disagreeing with me.  First, I was irritated to see yet another C-19/C-19 vaccine thread.  We already have 2 going, isn't that enough?  We're going from loading up the front page with politics to loading up it up with COVID (which is kind of ironic, since medicine has now turned political).  Perhaps you were not the proper target for my frustration, but when you proclaimed it the anti-vax thread vs the pro-vax thread and accused the "other side" of not having any good arguments... well, that's where I landed.  I guarantee, if someone with whom I agree had made similar statements, I would have been equally annoyed. 

which is ironic in that you and I are probably 95% in agreement on most of this stuff from what I've read on it to date.

Actually, the percentage probably exceeds 95. 

As an aside, I have never tried to convince anyone here to get the vaccine or to make them feel their life is in more peril by not getting it.  I completely understand the skepticism.  Of course, there are risks in taking it; there are also risks in not taking it.  The decision is a personal one; depending on each person's health, age, and circumstances, they will make that decision.  I just wish everyone would respect that. 

Connie, is it ok if I call you that?

I'm glad you responded, so thank you. This has been an unprecedented, nasty situation we've all been thrust into and we're all doing our best to do what we think is right.

My personal goal here is to work through it with the help of all the smart people on this board. Exchanging thoughts and ideas is never a bad thing in my view and can sometimes be difficult. I don't want to talk anyone into my position, everyone has choices and unique life circumstances to deal with.

I know I can come off as aggressive at times, usually it happens when I don't sleep enough. At those times I try and keep quiet on this board, I'm here to make friends with fellow riders and have made some course corrections along the way.

This exchange has felt pretty crappy to me so I'm glad we could come to terms on it.

Thanks again for your understanding the miscommunication, I'm working on a better presentation.

Bret 

[Willow]

... Do you think you're superior to those who disagree with you? ... 

LOL!  I feel superior to those who disagree with me.  If I didn't I would change my position.   I just can't see the sense in someone holding on to a belief that makes him feel inferior to others.      

3 friends that have been scared to death [ literally] of the chinese flu ... 

Literally?  So these three friends are dead now?   

Sorry (well maybe not so much).  It's been an interesting week.

[Valkorado]

[

LOL!  I feel superior to those who disagree with me.

We're aware of that deputy.   

[Valkorado]

For many patients "recovering" from 'rona is no walk in the park.

'People in their 30s are dying' - exhausted ITU staff reveal brutal truth of coronavirus frontline

http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-people-in-their-30s-are-dying-exhausted-itu-staff-reveal-brutal-truths-from-covid-front-line-12202763

Those hoping to just get it and get it over with may want to peruse this article.

[Patrick]

3 friends that have been scared to death [ literally] of the chinese flu went and had their shots 2 days ago. We thought they would be fine and glad to go out to diner tonight. Not so, they are still afraid. Must be the shots need time to 'break-in'.

Correct. For the Moderna shot it takes ~10-14 days to have any immunity, around 50% or so, and about 2 weeks after the 2nd shot to get the full ~95% immunity.

Thanks. Yep, I asked last night and thats what they said. So they'll be laying low for another month.

[Robert]

Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, who has been vaccinated for Covid-19, tested positive for the virus on Friday afternoon and remains asymptomatic, according to his spokeswoman.

[Patrick]

I keep hearing of more folks in the health care business that say they will not get the shots.

[Bret SD]

... Do you think you're superior to those who disagree with you? ... 

LOL!  I feel superior to those who disagree with me.  If I didn't I would change my position.   I just can't see the sense in someone holding on to a belief that makes him feel inferior to others.      

Interesting take.. context matters when drawing conclusions 

[hubcapsc]

I keep hearing of more folks in the health care business that say they will not get the shots.

I was just reading an article about that... I can sort of understand some of them:

Some health-care workers say they’ve passed up the shot for altruistic reasons, believing that others should get it first. Several health-care systems said they have struggled to persuade female employees to get vaccinated due to a lack of data about the vaccines’ impact on pregnancy.

Some of them just seem like morons:

Cleon Charles, a traveling nurse who has been working in Covid-19 hot spots throughout the pandemic, said she would never get the vaccine and has discouraged her daughters and parents from getting it, despite having had Covid-19 herself... She cited a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry... “I don’t want it,” Ms. Charles said. “I’ll take my chances and my vitamins.”

-Mike "I'm going with Dr. Jake's Liniment Tonic myself..."

[Bret SD]

I keep hearing of more folks in the health care business that say they will not get the shots.

I was just reading an article about that... I can sort of understand some of them:

Some health-care workers say they’ve passed up the shot for altruistic reasons, believing that others should get it first. Several health-care systems said they have struggled to persuade female employees to get vaccinated due to a lack of data about the vaccines’ impact on pregnancy.

Some of them just seem like morons:

Cleon Charles, a traveling nurse who has been working in Covid-19 hot spots throughout the pandemic, said she would never get the vaccine and has discouraged her daughters and parents from getting it, despite having had Covid-19 herself... She cited a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry... “I don’t want it,” Ms. Charles said. “I’ll take my chances and my vitamins.”

-Mike "I'm going with Dr. Jake's Liniment Tonic myself..."

Morons?

C'mon man 

[hubcapsc]

Morons?

C'mon man 

She's not an insurance salesman or computer programmer or whatever
most of us here are... she's a nurse...

Receptionist: the nurse will see you now...
Nurse: I don't trust needles, we're going to use a leech...

-Mike "get me outta here!"

[Bret SD]

Morons?

C'mon man 

She's not an insurance salesman or computer programmer or whatever
most of us here are... she's a nurse...

Receptionist: the nurse will see you now...
Nurse: I don't trust needles, we're going to use a leech...

-Mike "get me outta here!"

Haha, nice narrative   

[f6gal]

Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, who has been vaccinated for Covid-19, tested positive for the virus on Friday afternoon and remains asymptomatic, according to his spokeswoman.

They call it COVID 19 vaccine for a reason; it protects you from COVID 95% of the time and severe COVID 100%.  It's not called coronavirus vaccine and does not keep you from getting coronavirus in your system.  They have not proven or disproven asymptomatic cv transmission, which is why they still recommend using mitigation techniques after being vaccinated. 

[f6gal]

I keep hearing of more folks in the health care business that say they will not get the shots.

I was just reading an article about that... I can sort of understand some of them:

Some health-care workers say they’ve passed up the shot for altruistic reasons, believing that others should get it first. Several health-care systems said they have struggled to persuade female employees to get vaccinated due to a lack of data about the vaccines’ impact on pregnancy.

Some of them just seem like morons:

Cleon Charles, a traveling nurse who has been working in Covid-19 hot spots throughout the pandemic, said she would never get the vaccine and has discouraged her daughters and parents from getting it, despite having had Covid-19 herself... She cited a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry... “I don’t want it,” Ms. Charles said. “I’ll take my chances and my vitamins.”

-Mike "I'm going with Dr. Jake's Liniment Tonic myself..."

So the vitamin industry and Dr. Jake have no profit motive, right?  Hahaha. Please. 

As to the moron nurse, she had COVID, so she has some immunity.  Advising her parents not to get the vaccine is moronic irresponsible.

[f6gal]

Morons?

C'mon man 

She's not an insurance salesman or computer programmer or whatever
most of us here are... she's a nurse...

Receptionist: the nurse will see you now...
Nurse: I don't trust needles, we're going to use a leech...

-Mike "get me outta here!"

Nice analogy.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I keep hearing of more folks in the health care business that say they will not get the shots.

I was just reading an article about that... I can sort of understand some of them:

Some health-care workers say they’ve passed up the shot for altruistic reasons, believing that others should get it first. Several health-care systems said they have struggled to persuade female employees to get vaccinated due to a lack of data about the vaccines’ impact on pregnancy.

Some of them just seem like morons:

Cleon Charles, a traveling nurse who has been working in Covid-19 hot spots throughout the pandemic, said she would never get the vaccine and has discouraged her daughters and parents from getting it, despite having had Covid-19 herself... She cited a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry... “I don’t want it,” Ms. Charles said. “I’ll take my chances and my vitamins.”

-Mike "I'm going with Dr. Jake's Liniment Tonic myself..."

So the vitamin industry and Dr. Jake have no profit motive, right?  Hahaha. Please. 

As to the moron nurse, she had COVID, so she has some immunity.  Advising her parents not to get the vaccine is moronic irresponsible.

The question I have is, how could any hospital hire this lady and not set themselves up for litigation ?

[Serk]

Cleon Charles, a traveling nurse

The question I have is, how could any hospital hire this lady and not set themselves up for litigation ?

I'm thinking "traveling nurse" might be PC speak for "Moron who keeps getting fired from one place after another...

[hubcapsc]

I'm thinking "traveling nurse" might be PC speak for "Moron who keeps getting fired from one place after another...

No, It is a real thing, some of us are "traveling nurses"... maybe 2tonevalk will beat me up at the
next InZane  ?

He takes a stint here, where extra nurses are needed, then gets sent over to somewhere else where
there is need and so on... a contract worker kind of thing as I understand it... he likes it...

-Mike

[Serk]

I'm thinking "traveling nurse" might be PC speak for "Moron who keeps getting fired from one place after another...

No, It is a real thing, some of us are "traveling nurses"... maybe 2tonevalk will beat me up at the
next InZane  ?

He takes a stint here, where extra nurses are needed, then gets sent over to somewhere else where
there is need and so on... a contract worker kind of thing as I understand it... he likes it...

-Mike

Fair enough.... But maybe in THIS case my definition fits, although not for all "traveling nurses"...

[scooperhsd]

My wife has a couple of relatives who are BSN /RNs who do this. The money is good, the hours can sometimes suck.If I was 20 years younger I might think about it - going through Nursing school and doing this....

[98valk]

Nursing Home Whistleblower: Vaccines Are Killing Seniors!

https://principia-scientific.com/nursing-home-whistleblower-vaccines-are-killing-seniors/

[hubcapsc]

Nursing Home Whistleblower: Vaccines Are Killing Seniors!

https://principia-scientific.com/nursing-home-whistleblower-vaccines-are-killing-seniors/

A Takedown of Dr. Fake Fauci In an Unexpected Place!

https://principia-scientific.com/a-takedown-of-dr-fake-fauci-in-an-unexpected-place/

The 'New Strain' of the Coronavirus is a Giant Con Job!

https://principia-scientific.com/the-new-strain-of-the-coronavirus-is-a-giant-con-job/

-Mike