To mandate a temporary jab, or not to mandate a temporary jab?

[Crwth]

Honestly, we cannot concern ourselves with the vaccine 10 or 20 years from now. In fact, there is no concern whatsoever.

How do you know that? How can you assert, without equivocation that there can be no long-term side effects from the vaccines? Good grief - not even the "scientists" are making such absurd claims. Fact is, no one knows if there are any harmful long-term side effects from the vaccines. And frankly, how could they?

Consider some of the more popular prescription medicines that went to, or are in legal settlements - all - and this ought to be eye-opening for any who think big pharma is always on the up and up - FALSE CLAIMS.

Or some rather famous (or infamous) prescription and over-the-counter drugs that went to, or are in class-action lawsuits for causing cancer - ZANTAC, VALSARTIN, HARMONI, ELMIRON... and Talcum Powder of all things!

And virtually ALL of these drugs were FDA-Approved ('cept maybe talcum powder?).

Covid vaccines? Not FDA-Approved. Moreover, the manufacturers of the vaccines are IMMUNE from lawsuits based on the Emergency Use Authorization that enabled their introduction to the populace.

Think about that.

 

[Fantine]

You get your teeth cleaned twice a year, and that's more time consuming and uncomfortable. We do all sorts of uncomfortable things for our health.

Ever hear of no pain no gain?

Grow up, people.

 

[Crwth]

You get your teeth cleaned twice a year, and that's more time consuming and uncomfortable. We do all sorts of uncomfortable things for our health.

Ever hear of no pain no gain?

Grow up, people.

Hmm... I clean my teeth twice a day, sometimes more. And yeah, it's a pain, but...

 

[Fantine]

I meant professionally cleaned at the dentist's.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As opposed to the copious data we have on the 10-20 year long term effect from catching covid?

Yes, as opposed to the copious, trustworthy date on Sars/Covid we have for the last 10-20 years from outside the U.S. ...

... whatever. I usually want to know what I'm putting into my body (or on my body for that matter).

[edited for clarity]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, we all don't have a crystal ball, thus the common sense is to get vaccinated.

That's common sense now? I thought accepting Christ so as to hold out the promise of the Resurrection would be "common sense" (existentially speaking) ................but I get it.

The Times are a chang'n!

 

[tall73]

It's not a question worth fielding. If this virus continues on its current trajectory, then in 5-10 years there will be 2 groups of people. The first will be those with the bare minimum of common sense and civic duty that understand the need to get jabbed every 6 months, and the other group will be dead.

Can you spell out your reasoning on this?

Are you positing this because of variants?

Is it based on vaccines being better at protecting than previous infection?

 

[ThisIsMe123]

How do you know that? How can you assert, without equivocation that there can be no long-term side effects from the vaccines? Good grief - not even the "scientists" are making such absurd claims. Fact is, no one knows if there are any harmful long-term side effects from the vaccines. And frankly, how could they?

Do you have any idea what these side-effects could be 10 or 20 years from now? Is it worth it to just contract Covid, wind up in a hospital on a ventilator now, than to say concern yourself with whatever is pure speculation 10 to 20 years from now?

Covid vaccines? Not FDA-Approved.

They will be approved, just a matter of time.

Moreover, the manufacturers of the vaccines are IMMUNE from lawsuits based on the Emergency Use Authorization that enabled their introduction to the populace.

And virtually ALL of these drugs were FDA-Approved ('cept maybe talcum powder?).

Right, so even when the Covid vaccine is approved by FDA, you'll still find a reason not to get it.

 

[Tanj]

Can you spell out your reasoning on this?
Are you positing this because of variants?
Is it based on vaccines being better at protecting than previous infection?

It was a hyperbolic reaction to the OP's suggesting that getting a regular jab would be akin to armageddon. Having said that, in my opinion, this virus is just clearing its throat. It has two closely related cousins, SARS and MERS, which have CFRs of ~15% and 30% respectively, and has in the space of 1 year become twice as infections and evolved the ability to seriously infect younger people the original virus lacked. It has also become resistant to vaccines without the need for said vaccines as selection pressure. It's other cousins cause ~15% of the worlds common cold infections every year without feeling the need to undergo rapid mutation, like flu, nor maintain a massive serotype collection, like rhinovirus, but instead has found a way to ensure immunity is relatively short lived. And it would appear that the viruses best ally in the fight to kill people is people.

 

[tall73]

It was a hyperbolic reaction

OK

Having said that, in my opinion, this virus is just clearing its throat. It has two closely related cousins, SARS and MERS, which have CFRs of ~15% and 30% respectively, and has in the space of 1 year become twice as infections and evolved the ability to seriously infect younger people the original virus lacked. It has also become resistant to vaccines without the need for said vaccines as selection pressure. It's other cousins cause ~15% of the worlds common cold infections every year without feeling the need to undergo rapid mutation, like flu, nor maintain a massive serotype collection, like rhinovirus, but instead has found a way to ensure immunity is relatively short lived. And it would appear that the viruses best ally in the fight to kill people is people.

So something short of ALL the unvaccinated being dead, but hardly a rosy picture.

It seems you have proposed, broadly, two potential paths based on related corona viruses. One would involve less mutation, but short lived immunity (the cold causing coronavirus comparison). This would seem to be worse for those who have survived natural infection, but reject vaccines, as repeated vaccines could keep the short lived immunity going over a prolonged period.

The other seems to be a virus capable of fairly rapid mutation with potentially increasing spread and lethality. However, in that scenario the vaccinated are not fairing too well either as you note vaccine resistant mutations being a part of that pathway.

Which of these two paths do you see more likely? So far it seems the mutations are coming fairly fast, but immunity from natural infection with the virus may last a bit longer than the cold type, though of course, in some individuals reinfection is occurring, so a percentage won't enjoy that longer lasting immunity.

I see the argument that reducing potential infections through vaccination in the short term could help slow the mutations, and so partially mitigate that path. And I am not arguing against vaccination here.

But I am not so sure I see either the vaccinated or the unvaccinated fairing well if the path it is going down is fairly rapid mutation with more transmission and/or lethality. It sounds like if it goes that direction both groups may be in for a difficult time.

 

[tall73]

It was a hyperbolic reaction to the OP's suggesting that getting a regular jab would be akin to armageddon. Having said that, in my opinion, this virus is just clearing its throat. It has two closely related cousins, SARS and MERS, which have CFRs of ~15% and 30% respectively, and has in the space of 1 year become twice as infections and evolved the ability to seriously infect younger people the original virus lacked. It has also become resistant to vaccines without the need for said vaccines as selection pressure. It's other cousins cause ~15% of the worlds common cold infections every year without feeling the need to undergo rapid mutation, like flu, nor maintain a massive serotype collection, like rhinovirus, but instead has found a way to ensure immunity is relatively short lived. And it would appear that the viruses best ally in the fight to kill people is people.

The majority of breakthrough cases that lead to serious illness or death seem to be in older, and immune compromised individuals from what I have seen so far. Is the thought among the scientific community that this is expected efficacy of the vaccine, combined with less than robust immune response in some individuals resulting in breakthrough cases? Or are they starting to see the vaccines as providing more short lived immunity? Or is it primarily vaccine resistant variants playing a role?

I am sure it is all of the above, but I mean which is seen as the largest factor? Or is it still up in the air?

 

[Tanj]

OK
So something short of ALL the unvaccinated being dead, but hardly a rosy picture.

It seems you have proposed, broadly, two potential paths based on related corona viruses. One would involve less mutation, but short lived immunity (the cold causing coronavirus comparison). This would seem to be worse for those who have survived natural infection, but reject vaccines, as repeated vaccines could keep the short lived immunity going over a prolonged period.

The other seems to be a virus capable of fairly rapid mutation with potentially increasing spread and lethality. However, in that scenario the vaccinated are not fairing too well either as you note vaccine resistant mutations being a part of that pathway.

Which of these two paths do you see more likely? So far it seems the mutations are coming fairly fast, but immunity from natural infection with the virus may last a bit longer than the cold type, though of course, in some individuals reinfection is occurring, so a percentage won't enjoy that longer lasting immunity.

Both. Despite People helping the virus case #345, "genetically engineered bioweapon", this virus came from a zoonotic source. Which means it started out (relatively) inefficient and a fair distance from an evolutionary maxima, giving it plenty of room to move to greater efficiency, which is what we see currently with the strain progression through the Greek alphabet. At the same time, I see no reason it wouldn't maintain the BAU of short lived immunity that other coronaviruses employ.

I also didn't mention the very real risk that someone gets infected with two nasty strains at the same time allowing for a recombination event creating a virus that represents the worst of both.

But I am not so sure I see either the vaccinated or the unvaccinated fairing well if the path it is going down is fairly rapid mutation with more transmission and/or lethality. It sounds like if it goes that direction both groups may be in for a difficult time.

The solution to this nightmare scenario is rapid world wide deployment of regularly updated vaccines, with the understanding that
1. We have no mechanism for rapid deployment of vaccines world wide
2. We have no mechanism for rapid approval of updated vaccines
3. A sizeable minority of the world is more interested in fearing fantasy, and refusing to understand risk.

The majority of breakthrough cases that lead to serious illness or death seem to be in older, and immune compromised individuals from what I have seen so far. Is the thought among the scientific community that this is expected efficacy of the vaccine, combined with less than robust immune response in some individuals resulting in breakthrough cases? Or are they starting to see the vaccines as providing more short lived immunity? Or is it primarily vaccine resistant variants playing a role?

I am sure it is all of the above, but I mean which is seen as the largest factor? Or is it still up in the air?

Still up in the air. We barely understand how alpha worked, let alone Delta. So far however there are well described cases of damage to most of the organs in the human body, including the brain. People are scared of the as of yet completely non existent issue of "long term effects" from the vaccine (despite the fact no-one can point to a single long term effect of any vaccine ever). Which leads me to nightmare scenario n+1, people dying from organ failure/dysfunction in 3-50 years.