Why Is It Bad If I Don't Get Vaccinated?

[RestoreTheJoy]

This is just a news article. I quoted the actual study.

Efficacy is just a descriptive word that can mean different things depending on the study.

For some studies, such as with the modern vaccine, efficacy may mean efficacy in prevention of symptoms. But with relation to the AstraZeneca vaccine study which I posted above, efficacy is with relation to prevention of infection (not just symptoms).

like I said, either you can accept this reality, or you can't. It just isn't debatable.

Ok...now you are arguing with ScienceNews as to the meaning of efficacy.

Sorry, but "may reduce transmission" is not convincing evidence.

AstraZeneca had a lot of serious adverse reactions, as well. AstraZeneca Vaccine May Reduce Transmission of COVID-19, New Research Shows

 

[parousia70]

AstraZeneca had a lot of serious adverse reactions, as well. AstraZeneca Vaccine May Reduce Transmission of COVID-19, New Research Shows

Since when have adverse reactions been reason not to approve or prescribe pharmaceuticals that show benefit?

As of 2017, Humira was the top selling Prescription Drug in the US for 5 years in a row, and carries with it this list of known "Adverse Reactions":

Patients treated with adalimumab are at increased risk of infection, some of which may become serious and lead to hospitalization or death. These infections have included TB, invasive fungal infections, bacterial, viral, and those caused by opportunistic pathogens including Legionella and Listeria.
Increased risk of serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, including tuberculosis (TB), bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections due to other opportunistic pathogens. Lymphoma and other malignancies, some fatal, have been reported....
Humira Side Effects: Common, Severe, Long Term - Drugs.com

I'm pretty sure the none of the COVID vaccines have been shown to give you TB, Invasive Fungus, Bacterial and/or Viral Sepsis, Legionella, Listeria, and Fatal hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, like Humira, the U.S.'s #1 most widely used prescription drug, does....

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok...now you are arguing with ScienceNews as to the meaning of efficacy.

Sorry, but "may reduce transmission" is not convincing evidence.

AstraZeneca had a lot of serious adverse reactions, as well. AstraZeneca Vaccine May Reduce Transmission of COVID-19, New Research Shows

I'm not debating the word efficacy. The word holds the same meaning, it's just that some studies examine efficacy in preventing symptoms while others examine efficacy in preventing infection.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Bottom line is that you were wrong and for some reason just can't come to terms with your own misconceptions.

And literally not a single person in the study of 24,000 people has been described as having had severe side effects as a product of the vaccine. Yes, people have sore arms and some experience mild fevers while their body responds to the vaccine, but nothing beyond this has been attributed to the vaccine.

Moderna and pfizer vaccines have literally been given to millions of americans now. If these were truly dangerous, it would be blatantly obvious at this point in time. But really, with these two vaccines in particular, there is a lipid bilayer used to transport rna (like a bubble of fat), but that's it, no adjuvants or any oddball chemicals. The RNA breaks down in your body in literally hours and is gone, and all the rest is a purely natural immune response produced by your own bodys natural immune system. You may as well be injecting water into your arm.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Also, you have 2 choices, either not take the vaccine suffer the dreaded disease of Covid, or take your chances with highly effective vaccine?

There will be 2 kinds of people in this world, those who WILL get the Covid disease, and those who are vaccinated. You will NOT want the earlier.

1. It's not that dreaded. I've known a few people who got it, and it was hardly more than a common cold to any of them.

2. The epidemic is quickly dying right now. At this rate, it doesn't look like most of us will develop any sign of illness from this, ever. That's without a vaccine. Truth be told, the vaccine is now swiftly becoming irrelevant.

3. I would still rather take my chances with the virus than to ever take this vaccine. You don't use an abortion to research a vaccine if you ever want me to take it. I won't be contributing to their income.

 

[sunshineforJesus]

I dont think its neccesarily bad if you dont get the vaccine but it is a good idea since that way you
will be protecting yourself and others more.

 

[Job 33:6]

1. It's not that dreaded. I've known a few people who got it, and it was hardly more than a common cold to any of them.

2. The epidemic is quickly dying right now. At this rate, it doesn't look like most of us will develop any sign of illness from this, ever. That's without a vaccine. Truth be told, the vaccine is now swiftly becoming irrelevant.

3. I would still rather take my chances with the virus than to ever take this vaccine. You don't use an abortion to research a vaccine if you ever want me to take it. I won't be contributing to their income.

450,000 americans die with 3,000 dying every day = it's becoming irrelevant.

I've had covid-19 twice now, but the numbers are what they are. People thought the virus would go away after the first surge in March. It came back in July. People though it might be going away after the july surge and it came back in December.

It's easy for you to say that the virus is becoming irrelevant, but try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of dead americans (including my grandfather), the thousands who will die today, tomorrow and every day for the next few months, and those not yet infected who will die as well if not for a vaccine.

People keep saying that the virus isn't that bad and that maybe it'll just magically go away.

To that, I say let the numbers speak for themselves. If there is one thing we've learned from the numbers, it's that this virus isn't going to magically go away on its own. We have to take action or hundreds of thousands more Americans will die.

 

[timothyu]

If there is one thing we've learned from the numbers, it's that this virus isn't going to magically go away on its own.

The virus a hundred years ago affected people until 1929, over a decade.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It's easy for you to say that the virus is becoming irrelevant, but try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of dead americans

I don't know any. All of the people I know who got it had a mild case of the sniffles. But, yes, the vaccine is swiftly becoming irrelevant. The epidemic is in a hurry to go away right now, and that makes the vaccine irrelevant: the epidemic will die quite swiftly without it. I don't need it, and neither do you.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know any. All of the people I know who got it had a mild case of the sniffles. But, yes, the vaccine is swiftly becoming irrelevant. The epidemic is in a hurry to go away right now, and that makes the vaccine irrelevant: the epidemic will die quite swiftly without it. I don't need it, and neither do you.

No, it's not going anywhere anytime soon unless we take action against it. If we do nothing, it will take hundreds of thousands of American lives, on top of the hundreds of thousands that it already has, and the thousands of lives it takes every day.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I don't know any. All of the people I know who got it had a mild case of the sniffles. But, yes, the vaccine is swiftly becoming irrelevant. The epidemic is in a hurry to go away right now, and that makes the vaccine irrelevant: the epidemic will die quite swiftly without it. I don't need it, and neither do you.

Everyone, please don't listen to nonaeroterraqueous, he/she is part of the problem. Don't be a part of the problem.

Also, just because you KNOW people that got the "sniffles" from it, doesn't mean jack. It seems people are basing this on the "people that they know" that got Coronavirus.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm not debating the word efficacy. The word holds the same meaning, it's just that some studies examine efficacy in preventing symptoms while others examine efficacy in preventing infection.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Bottom line is that you were wrong and for some reason just can't come to terms with your own misconceptions.

And literally not a single person in the study of 24,000 people has been described as having had severe side effects as a product of the vaccine. Yes, people have sore arms and some experience mild fevers while their body responds to the vaccine, but nothing beyond this has been attributed to the vaccine.

Moderna and pfizer vaccines have literally been given to millions of americans now. If these were truly dangerous, it would be blatantly obvious at this point in time. But really, with these two vaccines in particular, there is a lipid bilayer used to transport rna (like a bubble of fat), but that's it, no adjuvants or any oddball chemicals. The RNA breaks down in your body in literally hours and is gone, and all the rest is a purely natural immune response produced by your own bodys natural immune system. You may as well be injecting water into your arm.

You didn't even read anything that addresses this, as made blatantly clear by several misleading statements you made:

"There were 175 "severe adverse events" in the trials: 84 events among those who received the vaccine and 91 in the control group, three of which were said to be possibly related to the vaccine itself or the control vaccine."

Severe adverse events are NOT "sore arms". One got Hemolytic Anemia. There are two kinds, the kind one has from birth and the acquired kind. How is it acquired:

Acquired
With this type of anemia, you are not born with a certain condition. Your body makes normal red blood cells, but they are later destroyed. This may happen because of:

• Certain infections, which may be viral or bacterial
• Medicines, such as penicillin, antimalarial medicines, sulfa medicines, or acetaminophen

I'm not the one here who isn't reading the evidence.

About being a self-adjuvant: :Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions

"Severe allergy-like reactions in at least eight people who received the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech over the past 2 weeks may be due to a compound in the packaging of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that forms the vaccine’s main ingredient, scientists say. A similar mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, which was authorized for emergency use in the United States on Friday, also contains the compound, polyethylene glycol (PEG).

PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine."

 

[Job 33:6]

You didn't even read anything that addresses this, as made blatantly clear by several misleading statements you made:

"There were 175 "severe adverse events" in the trials: 84 events among those who received the vaccine and 91 in the control group, three of which were said to be possibly related to the vaccine itself or the control vaccine."

You should read your own article more carefully. 91 were of a control group that never even received the vaccine.

Why bother bolding 175 when half didn't even receive the vaccine? It's not fair to say that the vaccine is causing side effects and then to count people that never even received the vaccine. Because obviously a vaccine cannot cause side effects in people that never received it.

As your own article says : three of which were said to be possibly related to the vaccine itself or the control vaccine.

Ie, none have been directly linked to the vaccine, with three under investigation.

As I said before:
And literally not a single person in the study of 24,000 people has been described as having had severe side effects as a product of this vaccine.

3 are a possibility, but even those could be of the control as well. Which is to say that none, of 24,000 volunteers, experienced severe side affects attributed to this vaccine.

"The researchers wrote that the vaccine shows "significant vaccine efficacy of 70.4% after two doses and protection of 64.1% after at least one standard dose, against symptomatic disease, with no safety concerns." The safety data - stating "the vaccine had a good safety profile"

Regarding pfizer and moderna vaccines, from your own article:
"Anaphylactic reactions can occur with any vaccine, but are usually extremely rare—about one per 1 million doses. "

It seems kind of silly to think that a 1/1,000,000 risk of having an allergic reaction (not death) outweighs the value of becoming vaccinated when 450,000 americans have died in the past 1 year due to covid-19.

From the cdc website:
"Twenty-one cases were determined to be anaphylaxis (a rate of 11.1 per million doses administered(of a total of over 1,890,000 vaccinations)), including 17 in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, seven of whom had a history of anaphylaxis."

Meaning that if you have a history of allergic reactions, you may have a 1 in 100,000 chance of having a reaction to these vaccines (not dying from it, but having an allergic reaction to it).

In comparison, chances of dying in a car accident in america is 1 in 100.

Meaning that you are multiple orders of magnitude more likely to die driving to the supermarket, than you are to react (but not die) from either of these vaccines, than to experience an allergic reaction to either vaccine (not even to die from it), even if you have a history of having allergic reactions.

So it's hardly rational to say that we shouldn't be getting vaccinated while 3,000 americans die every day and while 450,000 americans die per year due to covid-19, because we are worried that if we have a history of allergies, that we may have a 1 in 100,000 chance of having a reaction to one.

And for people without a history of allergic reactions, the risk is practically non existent.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You should read your own article more carefully. 91 were of a control group that never even received the vaccine.

Why bother bolding 175 when half didn't even receive the vaccine? It's not fair to say that the vaccine is causing side effects and then to count people that never even received the vaccine. Because obviously a vaccine cannot cause side effects in people that never received it.

.

It says what it says. You can spin it any way you want to, but it says that dozens had "serious side effects".

I'd like to know more about who is defining these events and who is actually keeping observing and keeping track.

 

[timothyu]

56 reports of 'adverse events' following COVID-19 vaccinations in B.C.

 

[timothyu]

New Israeli drug cured 29 of 30 moderate/serious COVID cases in days — hospital

Israel new COVD-19 therapy cured majority of patients within days (OTCMKTS:CHGCY) | Seeking Alpha

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

New Israeli drug cured 29 of 30 moderate/serious COVID cases in days — hospital

Israel new COVD-19 therapy cured majority of patients within days (OTCMKTS:CHGCY) | Seeking Alpha

I read about inhaled steroids helping the condition months ago. So this is interesting.

 

[Job 33:6]

It says what it says. You can spin it any way you want to, but it says that dozens had "serious side effects".

I'd like to know more about who is defining these events and who is actually keeping observing and keeping track.

The article says that dozens experienced "severe adverse events"...but here is the part you're ignoring, many were part of a control group.

Do you know what that means?

And no, the article does not say that anyone experienced any severe side effects.

AstraZeneca Vaccine May Reduce Transmission of COVID-19, New Research Shows

The article literally doesn't even use the words "side" or "effects".

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The article says that dozens experienced "severe adverse events"...but here is the part you're ignoring, many were part of a control group.

Do you know what that means?

And no, the article does not say that anyone experienced any severe side effects.

AstraZeneca Vaccine May Reduce Transmission of COVID-19, New Research Shows

The article literally doesn't even use the words "side" or "effects".

Over half WERE NOT in the control group. That is what you are ignoring.

But this has grown tiresome. You do what you want, what you believe is best for you and for your family. And everyone else should do the same, given the various benefits/risks for each.

 

[Job 33:6]

Over half WERE NOT in the control group. That is what you are ignoring.

But this has grown tiresome. You do what you want, what you believe is best for you and for your family. And everyone else should do the same, given the various benefits/risks for each.

Ok, so you admit that roughly half never received the vaccine? If so, why bother mentioning them?

And, as we read further, only 3 of those adverse events may have been a product of the vaccine and/or the control.

So where does this "dozens of severe side effects" suggestion come from?

It clearly doesn't come from the article you're sourcing because your own article speaks of no such thing.

In fact, your article doesn't even note 1 severe side effect during the trials of over 24,000 people, being caused by this particular vaccine. Not even 1.

But do you know what has killed at least 1 person? Covid-19. As a matter of fact, it has killed on the order of 450,000 americans in a single year.

Now please tell me, why does a study, in which 0 (zero) deaths were reported and 0 (zero) severe side effects attributed to the vaccine somehow deter you from getting vaccinated, while 3,000 americans die every single day from covid-19???

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Ok, so you admit that roughly half never received the vaccine? If so, why bother mentioning them?

And, as we read further, only 3 of those adverse events may have been a product of the vaccine and/or the control.

So where does this "dozens of severe side effects" suggestion come from?

It clearly doesn't come from the article you're sourcing because your own article speaks of no such thing.

In fact, your article doesn't even note 1 severe side effect during the trials of over 24,000 people, being caused by this particular vaccine. Not even 1.

If you cannot understand a quote - not my words - there is nothing I can do to make you understand. Listen, you do what you want. If you want to pretend that a "severe adverse event" in response to a vaccine is not colloquially a "side effect", you go right ahead.

But-for the vaccine, said event would not have occurred. That's the point.

Time will tell. Hopefully. So much is buried for financial reasons, one rarely gets the full story until decades later, and sometimes not even then.