Maybe vaccines work to prevent deaths?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
Printable View
Maybe vaccines work to prevent deaths?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
Palm meet face...Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Where is that number coming from? The IFR numbers I've seen are 1-1.5%, and even higher for Delta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
Serious question: why? That’s NOT being snarky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I admit I just have thoughts and impressions about all this stuff. I spend far less time studying this trying to understand and support my position than many of you. I could probably find a bunch of links to back up almost any opinion. Words like “maybe” and “it seems like” are more appropriate to me than people who are so sure they are correct. I don’t think we know enough yet to be to firm in our opinions. I DO think that having some degree of protection probably protects people from getting sicker.
Go ahead and link away for those so inclined. Someone else will match you link for link on the opposing side. I’ll play it safe and go with what I see as being the best odds. I wore a mask early on in crowded indoor settings. I got my shots. Now I’m living my life and not obsessed with the virus. It’s not a crusade for me either way. I just hope we can keep getting closer to “normal”.
Vaccines spur the creation of natural defense and provide a similar defense to someone who has antibodies (maybe better, maybe not. Been a moving target/message). That is unless the mRNA vaccine is gene therapy and not a traditional vaccine. If so, I’d consider it to be a therapeutic and not a traditional vaccine however if that’s true we’d have more problems with acceptance. Could be wrong but that’s what I’ve gathered from reading many sources, especially those that merely question the message. Anyway, the survival rate was high outside of the risk pop with/without the vax but I got one/two anyway. Partly to get people off my back and not have to deal with the Chad/Karen’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
Thanks for a thoughtful response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
My gut from the various sources leads me to believe there is more to be gained than lost by getting the vaccine. Sure, some people have adverse reactions. It’s like winning the lottery in reverse. Some people also still get the virus, but it probably helps in terms of severity.
I’m almost positive I had it a couple months before they said it was even here. Spent a 9 hour car ride with a young lady who had just returned for NYC and she coughed the entire way. That was 12/21/19. By Christmas Day, I was too sick to drive home, so the wife put me in the back seat and did all the driving. I coughed into February. She eventually got it, but not nearly as severe. Blood type rumor/theory says that made sense as I was more apt to have a severe case.
Around the same time a buddy was starting an “Asian based bank” north of Atlanta. All Asian investors serving primarily Asians. People came and went freely at that time. He said it was like dominoes with people going down well before the virus was supposed to be here. They all got sick initially, but then never got it again. Anecdotal, I know, but the fact that they say it wasn’t here at that point makes me believe they were either unaware or lying.
I don’t believe everyone who presents the “science”, and I certainly don’t believe the MSM. I just try to take it all in and make my best guess.
Question: How many times has Fauci, Walensky, Biden, the media and the CDC told us that 99% of covid deaths were from unvaccinated people?
Is/was this a bold face lie?
In a CDC slide presentation obtained by the Washington Post, the CDC shows that 15% of deaths in May were among fully vaccinated people! (and the trend doesn't look pretty) Again, how many times do I have to point out that they are lying to you - for the last 18 months this crew has lied about every aspect of this entire "pandemic".
How many times did they tell us that the vaccines had a 95% efficacy rate? The document shows that this rate is actually 61%!
A few other key quotes from the WAPO article:
"Another estimates that there are 35,000 symptomatic infections per week among (a total of) 162 million vaccinated Americans."
"The breakthrough cases are to be expected, the CDC briefing states, and will probably rise as a proportion of all cases because there are so many more people vaccinated now. This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."
"Walter A. Orenstein, associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center, said he was struck by data showing that vaccinated people who became infected with delta shed just as much virus as those who were not vaccinated. The slide references an outbreak in Barnstable County, Mass., where vaccinated and unvaccinated people shed nearly identical amounts of virus."
"It is no longer even clear whether “vaccine” is right term to describe these therapies. Most other vaccines protect for decades, if not a lifetime."
Links including slide presentation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...mask-guidance/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...-c6bc8426f688/
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...38891025166340
Pretty much the same here. I was working with a consultant group primarily from Asian countries who went home during Christmas break. While no one came back sick they did tell stories about how seriously it taken at home. By the end of Feb it was spreading here and the information was all over the place. Really no one’s fault unless the US played ostrich with the origin. Hard to tell because the info from China was um, not uh, forthcoming. I got the vax after discussing it with a lot of people (thx for the feedback here on how mRNA proteins work!).Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
The problem going forward is the damage it has done to the public’s perception of the Gov’t, it’s agencies and frankly, science. The fubarred messaging has confirmed biases and cognitive distortions on all sides to the point where everyone is mad/blaming everyone/everything.
I was pleased the Prez said today the vaccine/rollout was a bipartisan effort. That will help us all to maybe say, good job ‘Mericans and stop acting like we know what’s best for everyone, everywhere.
That’s the CFR (case fatality rate) - the death rate of documented cases. IFR (infection fatality rate) accounts for mild/asymptomatic or otherwise undocumented infections. It’s been calculated and updated over the course of the pandemic by government agencies and academia, and is readily available.Quote:
Originally Posted by smileyy
There’s no maybe about it, but that IFR was the same before vaccines.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Totally agree on the lies we are being told by our bureaucrats and media. But that trend you refer to is not concerning, but expected. As vaccination rates increase, there are fewer unvaccinated, so one should expect the percent of deaths in vaccinated people to increase. One of your quotes addresses this.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
On a side note, I challenge anyone here to find data on the number of reinfection deaths.
I agree - the vaccine was as close to a bi-partisan effort (or a non-partisan one, really) as we get these days. It was developed while Trump was president and rolled out under Biden. This should be, IMO, a huge 'win' for America. We developed and implemented a safe and extremely effective vaccine in record time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I am curious as to how you think that the vaccine could have been messaged differently, though. I thought that the vaccine messaging from the government and medical community was probably the most clear and consistent messaging related to anything COVID. Certainly much more so than the messaging around masks or social distancing. You could argue that the inconsistent messaging throughout kind of 'spread' to the vaccine messaging, I suppose. I think that everyone has been pretty clear - the vaccines are safe and everyone who is eligible should get one.
The messaging on social media and some fringe-news outlets has been much more of a problem, but those are people that are not out for the public good, but rather to drive engagement / clicks, and nothing drives engagement like a conspiracy theory. They don't care if people get sick, they just want them to engage with their platform.
My brother, for example, is not vaccinated because they are 'not done having kids yet' and the vaccine is 'proven' to cause miscarriages. He really can't explain it any further than that. I believe what he is referring to is a 'study' that made the rounds on social media in which something like 20% of the people who got pregnant in a vaccine study miscarried - the same % of pregnancies that naturally end in miscarriage. He is college educated and his wife is a dentist. For some reason they want to believe that the vaccine is harmful, and so it's easy to confirm that bias.
The fact that roughly a third of eligible people are choosing not to get the vax is something of a national tragedy / embarrassment, in my eyes.
Therein lies the problem - the lack of transparency from the CDC that has led to increasing amounts of skepticism. and outright blowback right now. The data the CDC reports is maddingly small. They should be providing cases, hospitalizations and death data - on a daily basis - for a minimum of 4 groups of people: fully vaccinated / partially vaccinated / unvaccinated and no prior infection / unvaccinated with prior infection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
They should then provide demographic data for each group, especially age, as well as the presence of comorbidities for hospitalizations and deaths.
This data should also be easily comparable to seasonal flu statistics. It's not.
As it is right now, we are left to speculate, use data from states, anecdotal data in news report, and foreign data.
I have the same situation. A brother and his wife who refuse to get the vaccine. Both college educated. As we are in our 70's, it's causing the family a lot of angst.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
On messaging. Agree it’s been clear and it’s been mixed in with all the other COVID messages. The big mistake was/is mentioning mandates, passports, re-masking and kids. It seems to have gone from get this, stay healthy to get this and obey or else.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Trying to sort through all the reports and where we seem to be headed:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...eed-more-blameQuote:
I would say the more you dig into the data the more confusing it gets, not less.
Is your brother questioning you about your choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
What does being college educated have to do with anything when it comes to making personal choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Good point.
I wonder if ol' Paul has "a lot of angst" with Biden's open border policy where hundreds, if not thousands of illegals are allowed to walk into our country with covid. Will you condemn that? Are you demanding that your party put an end to this? Or will you try to tell us it's not happening, or that the border patrol turns back covid positive illegals?
Gene therapy alters your genetic material. The covid vaccines do not, they are not gene therapy. The vaccines give your cells a code to create the spike protein and spit it out into circulation. More traditional vaccine development would have taken years to develop, study, manufacture. This isn’t to say the mRNA vaccines are superior to a traditional approach (they may or may not be) but that this avenue of getting widespread immunity was clearly the best avenue.
Focusing on deaths alone really diminishes the severity and cost of the disease. Sure 99% survive but in the 99% are those with long term complications, those that came to near death experiences, those that hospitalized and recovered completely, those that had mild symptoms and sought treatment, those that had no symptoms and sought treatment, those that didn’t seek treatment whatsoever. That’s still a lot of cost and burden to the healthcare system.
The domino effect of having this disease linger is immeasurable. Many routine preventative care measures are still being pushed back. Personal choice only goes so far. It is a personal choice to get vaccinated but it is a personal choice that affects a lot of people.
For those questioning fertility there is an easily found study from a urology group that found the disease to be found in reproductive tissue and decrease fertility in many male patients. Conversely there is evidence the vaccine does not affect male fertility. Also who wants erectile dysfunction?
Some of that is stated in jest but there is good quality hard (see what I did there) data that can be found if you look. It’s difficult for laypeople without medical background to find and interpret data. That is why we turn to and listen to medical professionals when we seek advice. What percentage of medical professionals recommend the vaccine? Has to be near upper 90s % as I have yet to encounter more than one or two in person.
Hopefully an increased ability to discern fact from fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smails
Right, it doesn’t alter the cells but they’re are also not traditional vaccines. Calling them vaccines or gene therapy is a matter of semantics. Either way doesn’t matter to me but people should be allowed to choose if an experimental immune boosting vaccine/therapy is right for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Where do you draw the line in “experimental”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
When is it no longer an experiment?
Where do you draw the line? I’m not pushing anything on others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
More clearly: what is you health risk tolerance for other people?
Wow...well at least your cards are shown. Yeah..because all of those Art History and Anthropology graduates have sooooo much more common sense than the blue collar workers out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Unfortunately it didn’t help the loon doctor from Ohio - Dr TenpennyQuote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Actually, Moderna DOES call them a gene therapy product. It's right here in their SEC filing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."
https://investors.modernatx.com/stat...7-78b32f244125
I didn’t make a suggestion that the vaccines shouldn’t be “pushed” because they are in experimental phase, you did. Which is a different argument than they shouldn’t be pushed because it’s a personal choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
mRNA medication that treats tumors among other diseases is very different than the vaccine. In your link provided it does not call the influenza vaccine that it is studying “gene therapy,” it calls it a vaccine. The potential medication for tumors are considered gene therapy because they modify the genetic makeup of the cells they enter. The vaccines they are studying do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
Page 20 - "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as aQuote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
source of side effects, mRNA based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could
negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism... The number and design of the clinical and preclinical
studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products
or may require safety testing like gene therapy products.
Page 26 - "Safety or efficacy concerns regarding our investigational medicines may result from any safety or efficacy concerns arising from nonclinical or clinical testing of other therapies targeting a similar disease state or other therapies, such as gene therapy, that are perceived similar to ours."
Page 27 - Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into the DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.
Page 28 - Regulatory requirements governing gene and cell therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future, and the implications for
mRNA-based therapies is unknown. For example, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within CBER to consolidate
the review of gene therapy and related products, and convenes the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its
review. In the EU, mRNA has been characterized as a Gene Therapy Medicinal Product. In certain countries, mRNA therapies have not yet been
classified or any such classification is not known to us, specifically, in Japan, the PMDA has not taken a position on the regulatory classification.
Notwithstanding the differences between our mRNA investigational medicines and gene therapies, the classification of some of our mRNA
investigational medicines as gene therapies in the United States, the EU and potentially other counties could adversely impact our ability to develop
our investigational medicines, and could negatively impact our platform and our business. For instance, a clinical hold on gene therapy products
across the field due to risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly may apply to our mRNA investigational medicines irrespective of the
mechanistic differences between gene therapies and mRNA.
Page 132 - mRNA allows for transient production of the encoded protein. mRNA therapies should also allow for dose titration and repeat dosing. This
provides several advantages over gene therapy. Gene therapy typically results in a permanent change to cellular DNA that may result in
uncontrolled or constant production of the desired protein in local tissue or in distant sites, which could cause local or systemic side effects.
Further, some gene therapy delivery vehicles are associated with immune responses that limit the ability to repeat dose, preventing dose titration
So no, Moderna doesn't call it a gene therapy product, the FDA does, if anything Moderna hates the gene therapy product label.
Okay, you appear to be correct on this. The first mention of “gene therapy” is near the beginning of the document in the Risk Factors section, and seemed to me to be an overarching declarative. But I see the distinction you mentioned now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
And you asked when is a drug no longer experimental. I don't know but you are pushing for people to take a still experimental vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Right, they're having a hard enough time getting everyone to take the vaccine. I'd shy away from that label as well....Quote:
Originally Posted by GIMMFD
So for you, is it no longer experimental when it has FDA approval? Or is there a timeframe after approval to be no longer experimental?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I could argue, for arguments sake alone, that every medicine/treatment whether artificial or natural is a lifelong experiment. Perhaps natural immunity is experimental?
I just find it odd that there are a lot of people in the same mindset that say this is a lab produced virus and yet won’t take the vaccine. Which experiment are you more comfortable with? (Not directing that last question at you Strange as I don’t know your position on origins of virus, just a rhetorical question ).
I’m not pushing anything, I hold the opinion that the vaccine is not gene therapy, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population benefits from the vaccine, and that further delay of mass immunity will be of detriment to everyone long term. It’s frustrating to see this perpetuate due to misinformation. Are there people that haven’t received the vaccine because they believe it to be gene therapy and their DNA is different? Yes apparently. And that is based on misinformation. That’s frustrating to see as I deal with this crap on a daily basis.
It doesn’t change my out of work life other than my small kids are unable to get vaccinated, which makes a lot of activities different. Typically vaccines are less likely to cause long term issues than the disease which it is protective. When it is approved for children, mine will receive the vaccine. If they had covid recently I could see waiting for awhile. Same for adults.
Not comfortable with either hypothetical experiment. Are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Calling it gene therapy and not a traditional vax isn’t mis-info. Unless mis-info is whatever doesn’t fit what you believe.
Agree on the kids. Don’t plan on masking them at school. Too much mid-info on masks. :)
It is beginning to look like this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-emerg...170225381.html
“The data bolsters emerging evidence that vaccinated people have high viral loads and may transmit the Delta variant as easily as those who are unvaccinated.”
We make lesser of two evil choices every day, don’t we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Calling it gene therapy is misinformation because it isn’t true. Pretty black and white on that one. Does it alter our genes? No. Not gene therapy. It’s not perspective it’s objective, unless you are a conspiracy theorist, in which you can question everything in life as not face value.
I don’t know the first thing about gene therapy and whether or not this is gene therapy…but if it is not gene therapy, why does the FDA call it gene therapy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Additionally, getting the vaccine is risky - latest data from CDC VAERS:Quote:
Originally Posted by principal
12K deaths
13K permanent disabilities
11K life threatening situations
41K hospitalizations
65K emergency room doctor visits
https://basedunderground.com/2021/07...d-as-unvaxxed/