-
No data exists on the impact of "longevity path". I haven't gotten a flu shot since 2011. Only ill once with cold/flu since then. I have no chronic issues such as RA, diabetes, etc., no prescription meds. I'm in excellent health. I subscribe to JAMA weekly updates. My decision based on potential severe health impacts was to get the vaccine. I got Moderna, wife got Pfizer. Only symptom we got was mild fatigue lasting about 12 hours. Weigh your own circumstances then decide. Take Care.
-
Let's look at it logically. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain two main ingredients: (1) messenger RNA coded to cause the cell's ribosomes to assemble a replica of the COVID-19 spike protein and (2) a liposome "bubble" that surrounds and contains the mRNA and passes it through the cell wall. Your body is processing trillions of such mRNA messages all the time, and there's no reason why this particular one should produce any long-term effects. The spike protein set loose in the cell has a short half-life of a few hours and could not be expected to produce any long term effects. The liposome is made of the same fatty molecules that form cell walls and could not be expected to produce any long term effects.
On the other hand, COVID-19 has known "long-haul" effects in some infected and is known in many cases to cause long term damage to many organs, particularly the lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart. It can also kill you, which is the ultimate long term effect.
Therefore, it's no contest: GET VACCINATED!
-
JGC I appreciate immensely.. Thank you so much
-
JGC That's a pretty cavalier take on a product that demonstrably crippled tens of thousands already.
Actually, there IS a contest: If you are sub-50 and you are healthy, the vaccine won't help you much against COVID. It is not really a vaccine as it allows you to contract and transmit the virus once you are inoculated. It is an immunobooster (which comes with its own side effects) and nothing more.
For someone like yourself who is in his 80s it may make sense , but for someone 45 and under it makes no sense gambling with this rushed product.
-
aribadabar "demonstrably crippled tens of thousands"? I didnt know that. Could you please cite the source of that information?
-
chuck stanley MSM spread propaganda to whitewash the impact the so-called vaccines have on healthy people.
Source: my lying eyes.
P.S. Spare me any BS, OK?
-
aribadabar NPR is rated as slightly left biased, so I would agree to discount their point of view. I am no fan of MSM. So I checked the views of media rated centrist by Allsides Media Bias ratings, Reuters and Newsweek. They seem to agree that unverified reports on the VAERS are being used to spread anti-vax propaganda. I take a more moderate point of view. I think the reports of adverse events should be considered when weighing the evidence of risk with/ without the vaccine. However, the statement that the vaccine has demonstrably crippled tens of thousands is not supported by any data I have seen.
-
aribadabar
You should spare us your BS. If the mRNA vaccines had "demonstrably crippled tens of thousands", the vaccines would never have made it past the FDA, which would certainly deny a permit under those circumstances. I am not a fan of the FDA, but it is because it puts too many barriers in the way of effective drugs, resulting in unnecessary deaths from release delay.
The thing that needs to be emphasized about the present COVID situation is that the rules have changed. An individual who has caught the Delta Variant will shed 1,000 times more virus particles than was the case with the early variants. The number of particles shed is one multiplicative term in a calculation of the probability of catching the virus. Changing a multiplicative element by a factor of 1,000 will push the probability toward increasing by 1,000, unless some of the other terms go down. This means that, integrated over the next few years, the probability of an unvaccinated person catching COVID is approaching 1. Anyone who has not been vaccinated is almost certain to catch the virus and to pass it on to others, vaccinated or not. Your fake news is going to kill people.
-
JGC well explained. Agree 100%
-
-
OTOH - there is no drug that has had less testing and been used in FDA history
I have zero fear of COVID
-
Paul Beauchemin
You are entitled to your opinion, as long as it doesn't end by giving others COVID-19. May the God of hubris leave you untouched.
-
-
Based on data I have analyzed getting the vaccine reduces risk by 1% or less. I'm not anti-vax but want to wait until adequate data is available. Last weeks FDA discussion was pretty eye-opening regarding risks
Biggest risk factors
- low vitamin D
-obesity
-comorbidities
Of course, the problem is most Americans are overweight with poor metabolic health and low in Vitamin D
-
Paul Beauchemin
You are saying that having COVID19 antibodies circulating in your bloodstream only reduces your chance of contracting the virus by 1%? If you believe that, I have a lovely bridge between Brooklyn and NYC that you might be interested in buying. In any case, why not get vaccinated AND maintain a good BMI and take vitamin D? That's my approach.
-
Paul Beauchemin
sorry Paul, I’m having real trouble with your 1% conclusion on this one.
-
BobM Its the difference between absolute risk and relative risk
Two people exposed to the virus - one with vaccine one without
In this case, according to Pfizer's data relative risk of non-vaccinated getting sick is anywhere from 60%-80% higher depending on what data is presented. Some vaccines claim even better relative risk numbers.
However, overall, my risk of getting sick in the general population is only 0.84-1.0 % less than a vaccinated person - this is absolute risk. For example, if 30% of the vaccinated population gets Covid, 31% of the non-vaccinated will get it.
These vaccines don't offer immunity.
-
Paul Beauchemin
That is very enlightening. Thanks for the explanation. I am quite surprised at how little benefit the vaccinations actually provide in terms of risk of infection.
Would it be fair to ask your calculation of relative risk of ending up in ICU or dying if you are infected as compared to someone who was vaccinated? And is there a way to calculate your absolute risk of ICU or dying?
For me, I think those additional calculations would provide a better perspective, though I suppose one should also take into account the loss of effectiveness over time.
-
chuck stanley Actually, I mis-stated the endpoints of the trials. These numbers were relative and absolute risk of hospitalization - not catching the disease. Concept is still the same.
Two other factors are important
- testing was done on younger, healthier population than those most at risk
-the efficacy of the vaccines seems to diminish considerably after 6-8 months, hence the debate on boosters.
In my mind, best course of action is to get yourself metabolically healthy and increase Vitamin D levels. I keep mine between 60-80 ng/ml.
But much easier to tell the masses to take an untested vaccine than to take away their donuts and send them to the gym.
-
JGC Don't know where you are getting that idea.
Referring to the difference between absolute risk and relative risk
Two people exposed to the virus - one with vaccine one without
In this case, according to Pfizer's data relative risk of non-vaccinated getting hospitalized is anywhere from 60%-80% higher depending on what data is presented. Some vaccines claim even better relative risk numbers.
However, overall, my risk of getting hospitalized in the general population is only 0.84-1.0 % less than a vaccinated person - this is absolute risk. For example, if 30% of the vaccinated population gets Covid, 31% of the non-vaccinated will get it.
These vaccines don't offer immunity. These numbers were for younger, healthier population in the trials - not for those most at risk.Their effectiveness decreases substantially over time.
My experience working with the government ( interfaced with the EPA for 5 years when I worked for a large chemical corp) is that government employees have a level of incompetence and smugness about their positions that defy reality. The constant change of position by government officials during this pandemic has totally destroyed their credibility IMO.
Seems to me that those who unquestionably take this vaccine have already bought that bridge in Brooklyn.
You can chose your path, I'll chose mine thankyou.
-
Paul Beauchemin
The Delta Variant causes the infected to shed around 1,000 times more virus particles than do the earlier variants. That makes Delta up to 1,000 times more contagious. The Pfizer data was based on the earlier variants. Therefore, your 1% estimate is suspect.
-
JGC you criticized others in this thread for spreading BS but you are guilty of same
"New data was released by the CDC showing that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant can carry detectable viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated,"
There is no scientific way for anyone to validate your claim. Spreading this type of info is why so many are hesitant to take the vaccine
-
Paul Beauchemin
You are doubting that the Delta Variant causes those infected to shed 1,000 times more virus particles than earlier variants? See this LINK. Also, I have heard Fauchi and other virus specialist quote this characteristic of the Delta Variant during interviews. It accounts for its rapid spread. Your quote has nothing to do with the quantity of virus shed.
-
JGC Right...I looked at that and it is nonsense. An anecdote at best. As far as Fauci - he represents all that is wrong with government - incompetent, arrogant and a liar par excellence saying what ever serves his purpose at the moment.
-
JGC I read this study - this 1000 x figure has to do with Delta variant supposedly being more contagious. No doubt that is true (whether its 1000x is debatable since they are inferring that from a PCR test, not real contagion) since that is what viruses do.
Nothing to do with vaccine
-
