Killed three people blames on COVID-19 vaccine

[SouthernDude]

With all due respect, you are not exactly addressing my questions and statements. Eg. about herd immunity. Saying it doesn't always eliminate viruses does not directly relate to my questions. And saying ALL mass vaccination will do is select more resistant strains is not exactly relevant either. Ditto about vaccines being only effective one year. We both know that a new strain booster can be developed in less than a year. They are working on that right now, while so far the vaccines are resistant to all current variants.

And re your last point. Are you arguing against my assertion that a virus can't be eliminated through herd immunity in a location for a time (until it is introduced from somewhere else)?

Herd immunity can be achieved by administering the vaccine and by getting the virus. All vaccines do is give the immune system a defanged version of the virus. That means there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: vaccines, getting the virus, or a combination of the two.

Can herd immunity reduce the spread or eliminate a virus entirely? Yes. It can. However, that completely depends on the virus and vaccine characteristics. Small pox, polio, and HPV (characteristics imply elimination is possible) are examples of viruses that can essentially be eliminated. Covid and the Flu are examples of viruses that cannot be eliminated, no matter how many vaccines are distributed. It just won't work.

Think about it. The Covid vaccine is really only effective for 6-8 months, so the ENTIRE population would have to get the vaccine every 6-8 months. However, that actually won't stop people from getting the virus itself. Realistically, the vaccine wanes in effectiveness quickly after it is given. Since the virus mutates quickly, that would mean that now we have an indefinite series of vaccines that never or seldom go through the normal channels of development and where manufacturers get special immunity over any defective produce (look at what's happening with moderna's vaccine now). That's if everything works smoothly.

In short, the whole population would be essentially required to take two booster shots a year that seldom go through the normal development process indefinitely for a virus that is barely lethal (or actually even serious) for the majority of the population. We don't do this with the flu, even though the situation with the flu is very comparable to covid. Why is that?

Maybe it's because it's nearly impossible to achieve the necessary herd immunity for viruses and their associated vaccines with these characteristics without having a totalitarian state and/or perpetual fear propaganda over the virus. Also, show me one nation that has actually ramped down it's restrictions because of vaccination rates. It doesn't exist. In some cases, the restrictions just got worse. This is not sustainable and I am not participating in this.

 

[bwilson4web]

There is some buzz about the COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis. But it turns out getting COVID-19 has a risk too:

Source: Association Between COVID-19 and Myocarditis Using Hospital-Based Administrative Data — United States, March 2020–January 2021 | MMWR

Viral infections are a common cause of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium) that can result in hospitalization, heart failure, and sudden death (1). Emerging data suggest an association between COVID-19 and myocarditis (2–5). CDC assessed this association using a large, U.S. hospital-based administrative database of health care encounters from >900 hospitals. Myocarditis inpatient encounters were 42.3% higher in 2020 than in 2019. During March 2020–January 2021, the period that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during an inpatient or hospital-based outpatient encounter and 0.009% among patients who were not diagnosed with COVID-19. . . . ​

It makes sense that the COVID-19 vaccine might share similar effects as the disease itself. But unlike the random infection, the vaccinated patent can be monitored closely to detect and treat myocarditis early.

Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

Herd immunity can be achieved by administering the vaccine and by getting the virus. All vaccines do is give the immune system a defanged version of the virus. That means there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: vaccines, getting the virus, or a combination of the two.

Can herd immunity reduce the spread or eliminate a virus entirely? Yes. It can. However, that completely depends on the virus and vaccine characteristics. Small pox, polio, and HPV (characteristics imply elimination is possible) are examples of viruses that can essentially be eliminated. Covid and the Flu are examples of viruses that cannot be eliminated, no matter how many vaccines are distributed. It just won't work.

Think about it. The Covid vaccine is really only effective for 6-8 months, so the ENTIRE population would have to get the vaccine every 6-8 months. However, that actually won't stop people from getting the virus itself. Realistically, the vaccine wanes in effectiveness quickly after it is given. Since the virus mutates quickly, that would mean that now we have an indefinite series of vaccines that never or seldom go through the normal channels of development and where manufacturers get special immunity over any defective produce (look at what's happening with moderna's vaccine now). That's if everything works smoothly.

In short, the whole population would be essentially required to take two booster shots a year that seldom go through the normal development process indefinitely for a virus that is barely lethal (or actually even serious) for the majority of the population. We don't do this with the flu, even though the situation with the flu is very comparable to covid. Why is that?

Maybe it's because it's nearly impossible to achieve the necessary herd immunity for viruses and their associated vaccines with these characteristics without having a totalitarian state and/or perpetual fear propaganda over the virus. Also, show me one nation that has actually ramped down it's restrictions because of vaccination rates. It doesn't exist. In some cases, the restrictions just got worse. This is not sustainable and I am not participating in this.

It's about getting to herd immunity faster, and that's what you seem to be against, which I just don't get. We may very well require getting booster shots once a year, or more. But that's OK, if it keeps covid down to a minimal level, at worst. What's wrong with that? The alternative is a lot more deaths.

As for what nation actually ramped down its restrictions due to vaccinations? Well, here in BC, we were pretty well totally unrestricted in the spring/early summer before the delta variant hit. We had good vaccine uptake here, and didn't even have to wear masks inside stores or restaurants. Even with the delta, didn't clamp down that hard, just had to wear masks again inside. Now with delta waning, and our vaccine passports, on path again to remove all restrictions. I believe some of your states down there are still completely open as well.

And getting my flu shot next week. I do enjoy being immune to that as well.

 

[SouthernDude]

It's about getting to herd immunity faster, and that's what you seem to be against, which I just don't get. We may very well require getting booster shots once a year, or more. But that's OK, if it keeps covid down to a minimal level, at worst. What's wrong with that? The alternative is a lot more deaths.

You are missing the point. You can never have constant herd immunity with covid without tyranny. Vaccine passports are a pretty significant infringement upon personal liberties. I reject the idea that it's some nothingburger. Think about it, when was the last time anyone going to a retail store or going to or restaurant directly asked all potential customers to show proof for getting a medical procedure? That is pretty invasive. What happens if these mandates end up backfiring (for example, causing the virus to mutate around the vaccine quicker than a new one could be developed by conventional means)? (The answer is that the mandate will not stop as soon as it becomes clear it backfired and nobody will be held accountable for pushing for it.) All it does is perpetuate fear over the virus and I would argue that it would ultimately backfire in the future.

Plus, the lethality of the virus for the unvaccinated is greatly exaggerated anyways. Ask yourself why vaccine passports where never used for the flu and what makes covid significantly different that it justifies a vaccine passport. The answer is media propaganda. This question gets passed around a lot, but I still think it has a point: If someone not taking the vaccine is a threat to the people who have had the vaccine, then is the vaccine really providing protection? <-- This question is derived from the inconsistent messaging from the media and Fauci himself.

There are many things that if imposed could technically "save lives", but it would be tyrannical to do so. Security and safety are often the excuses for taking away personal liberties (the citizens of the US essentially have no privacy anymore because of hypothetical threats of terrorism). I do not want to continue in the direction towards additional tyranny over a virus with exaggerated lethality.

As for what nation actually ramped down its restrictions due to vaccinations? Well, here in BC, we were pretty well totally unrestricted in the spring/early summer before the delta variant hit. We had good vaccine uptake here, and didn't even have to wear masks inside stores or restaurants. Even with the delta, didn't clamp down that hard, just had to wear masks again inside. Now with delta waning, and our vaccine passports, on path again to remove all restrictions. I believe some of your states down there are still completely open as well.

The vaccine passport/mandate itself is a restriction and you still have to wear masks and "socially distance". So no, you actually have more restrictions now despite the vaccination rate.

And getting my flu shot next week. I do enjoy being immune to that as well.

That vaccine is voluntary, just like the covid vaccine should be.

 

[R P]

You've turned this discussion from the role of vaccines with hastening herd immunity and reducing deaths, to a discussion of mandates and restrictions. Personally I don't like mandates. But I am OK with giving extra benefit and value to those who are vaccinated. There is a difference.

I don't think govt and health leaders are giving enough benefit to those that are fully vaccinated. The broad brush approach of restrictions (mask wearing, pre-travel testing, etc) to those that are fully vaccinated (incl the booster when due) does not exactly encourage the unvaccinated to join the immunity herd. And then you see the hypocrite leaders that don't follow their own advice.

And restrictions and clamp downs have gone way overboard in the past, which just made people more distrustful. Some were just bizarre, like not letting people go to the beach and sit on the sand, even with social distancing. Or go out by yourself to fish on a lake. Where I live, in BC, we had only minimal restrictions, the most was having to wear masks indoors and restrict larger gatherings for a period of time. And our covid stats were actually much better than other parts of Canada that had more severe clamp downs. That was pre-Delta. Now, like elsewhere, covid has hit the unvaccinated and sadly some nursing homes again, when they didn't apply the boosters soon enough. But overall, I think vaccines have worked very well here.

So personally I don't argue for mandates, but I do strongly encourage people to take the vaccines. I try to listen why people resist and address their objections. I have been successful with some, but not everyone of course. It is easier to discuss the safety of the vaccines than argue against the freedom principles that some are hung up on.

 

[bwilson4web]

Simpler to say, “You freedom ends with my nose.”

There is no right to infect others.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

You've turned this discussion from the role of vaccines with hastening herd immunity and reducing deaths, to a discussion of mandates and restrictions. Personally I don't like mandates. But I am OK with giving extra benefit and value to those who are vaccinated. There is a difference.

These "benefits" given to vaccinated people will inherently be restrictions for the vaccinated. That is, in essence, a soft mandate, so there really isn't much of a difference.Again, why isn't this done with the flu? Think about it. Very comparable situation.

It is impossible to achieve any meaningful amount of herd immunity without tyranny because of the characteristics of both the virus and the vaccine. There is no reason to have any mandates or soft mandates. The virus itself isn't really that lethal anyways.

I don't think govt and health leaders are giving enough benefit to those that are fully vaccinated. The broad brush approach of restrictions (mask wearing, pre-travel testing, etc) to those that are fully vaccinated (incl the booster when due) does not exactly encourage the unvaccinated to join the immunity herd. And then you see the hypocrite leaders that don't follow their own advice.

And restrictions and clamp downs have gone way overboard in the past, which just made people more distrustful. Some were just bizarre, like not letting people go to the beach and sit on the sand, even with social distancing. Or go out by yourself to fish on a lake. Where I live, in BC, we had only minimal restrictions, the most was having to wear masks indoors and restrict larger gatherings for a period of time. And our covid stats were actually much better than other parts of Canada that had more severe clamp downs. That was pre-Delta. Now, like elsewhere, covid has hit the unvaccinated and sadly some nursing homes again, when they didn't apply the boosters soon enough. But overall, I think vaccines have worked very well here.

Yes, the elite have clearly shown that they can't be trusted. So the result is less people are willing to take the vaccine from the lack of trust. I don't blame them.

So personally I don't argue for mandates, but I do strongly encourage people to take the vaccines. I try to listen why people resist and address their objections. I have been successful with some, but not everyone of course. It is easier to discuss the safety of the vaccines than argue against the freedom principles that some are hung up on.

Sure, open dialogue is the better method to convince people of something. I have basically convinced my parents to possibly get an EV as their next car. No force needed.

The people who are concerned about freedoms are absolutely correct. Why wouldn't they be? There have been too many inconsistencies and reasonable questions get censored. Some people may take it too far and not get a vaccine when it would probably benefit them out of concern over freedom, but that's still their decision. Better to tell them that them getting the vaccine doesn't automatically validate the tyrannical nonsense.

Most people who haven't gotten the vaccine haven't done so out of mistrust of the 'experts' and the inconsistencies of elite.

 

[SouthernDude]

Simpler to say, “You freedom ends with my nose.”

There is no right to infect others.

Bob Wilson

lol. Guess you can never get near anyone ever again because you never know if you are carrying some virus/bacteria.

 

[R P]

These "benefits" given to vaccinated people will inherently be restrictions for the vaccinated. That is, in essence, a soft mandate, so there really isn't much of a difference.Again, why isn't this done with the flu? Think about it. Very comparable situation.

It is impossible to achieve any meaningful amount of herd immunity without tyranny because of the characteristics of both the virus and the vaccine. There is no reason to have any mandates or soft mandates. The virus itself isn't really that lethal anyways.



Yes, the elite have clearly shown that they can't be trusted. So the result is less people are willing to take the vaccine from the lack of trust. I don't blame them.


Sure, open dialogue is the better method to convince people of something. I have basically convinced my parents to possibly get an EV as their next car. No force needed.

The people who are concerned about freedoms are absolutely correct. Why wouldn't they be? There have been too many inconsistencies and reasonable questions get censored. Some people may take it too far and not get a vaccine when it would probably benefit them out of concern over freedom, but that's still their decision. Better to tell them that them getting the vaccine doesn't automatically validate the tyrannical nonsense.

Most people who haven't gotten the vaccine haven't done so out of mistrust of the 'experts' and the inconsistencies of elite.

Well, I think we have probably beat this topic to death now. I think I understand your position very well now, not that I agree. I wish you well.

 

[SouthernDude]

Well, I think we have probably beat this topic to death now. I think I understand your position very well now, not that I agree. I wish you well.

Likewise.