Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

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?

---

They don’t. There are several categories of mRNA products and from I can tell the FDA considers it a vaccine. There are other products they label gene therapy but the vaccines are not one of them. If you read the link from above you will be able to discern that. It just takes a good half hour to read. There’s also no mentioning of covid vaccine because the link is from 2018.

There are mRNA products that also suppress genes instead of compensating for a bad gene’s production of proteins. That’s where it gets fuzzier as Moderna says one thing and FDA says another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

They don’t. There are several categories of mRNA products and from I can tell the FDA considers it a vaccine. There are other products they label gene therapy but the vaccines are not one of them. If you read the link from above you will be able to discern that. It just takes a good half hour to read. There’s also no mentioning of covid vaccine because the link is from 2018.

There are mRNA products that also suppress genes instead of compensating for a bad gene’s production of proteins. That’s where it gets fuzzier as Moderna says one thing and FDA says another.

---

Got it. That makes sense. Thank you, I will read the link.

Is there a short explanation you can provide that differentiates between an mRNA product that is gene therapy and one that is not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Right, they're having a hard enough time getting everyone to take the vaccine. I'd shy away from that label as well....

---

Their stance is from at least 2018 (look at the date on the link) so it’s not of any relevance to covid. Not in disagreement that they would likely double down on that now but the basis for their statement is so that their products not get mislabeled/categorized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

Got it. That makes sense. Thank you, I will read the link.

Is there a short explanation you can provide that differentiates between an mRNA product that is gene therapy and one that is not?

---

Yes I’ll try to find it. I still wouldn’t categorize it as gene therapy but I could see an argument. Basically you are suppressing a gene from doing harm. The Moderna argument is that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus and change the genetic makeup of the cell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

We make lesser of two evil choices every day, don’t we?

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.

---

Correct, WE make our personal choices everyday.

Not really going to argue with you on what exactly you consider gene therapy. It's not a traditional vaccine (fact) and the FDA classifies it as gene therapy. No conspiracy in that. Regardless, it is helpful and people can make their own choices.

Hope this conversation helps in understanding some people's reservations (not mine but I get it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Their stance is from at least 2018 (look at the date on the link) so it’s not of any relevance to covid. Not in disagreement that they would likely double down on that now but the basis for their statement is so that their products not get mislabeled/categorized.

---

Agree, not necessarily mislabeling however more along the lines of controlling the brand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Correct, WE make our personal choices everyday.

Not really going to argue with you on what exactly you consider gene therapy. It's not a traditional vaccine (fact) and the FDA classifies it as gene therapy. No conspiracy in that. Regardless, it is helpful and people can make their own choices.

Hope this conversation helps in understanding some people's reservations (not mine but I get it).

---

Where do you see this? What is helpful? Not trying to be rude but this is exactly the misinformation to which I am referring. By now the audience has left the building so it’s likely not too impactful but if there is one person reading this that can say “oh wait, MAYBE I should read into this a bit more then I agree, it helps answer questions on some reservations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Where do you see this? What is helpful? Not trying to be rude but this is exactly the misinformation to which I am referring. By now the audience has left the building so it’s likely not too impactful but if there is one person reading this that can say “oh wait, MAYBE I should read into this a bit more then I agree, it helps answer questions on some reservations.

---

FDA? From the link provide from Lou and GIMMFD's overview and no updates that have been provided to change the FDA's classification. Listen, not really going to argue with you on this. I've researched this and some call it gene therapy and some call it a vaccine. From what I've read, IMHO it's a form of gene therapy that acts like a vaccine but is not a traditional vaccine. It is still not approved outside of emergency use by the FDA so I understand why there is skepticism. That and how unnecessarily political all things COVID have become.

If YOU believe what has been provided is mis-info please provide links to the FDA's re-classification on Moderna and we can discuss. It happens to fall in with the other research I've done and I hadn't heard of the FDA's view on Moderna until now (thanks Lou).

This article was published in May:

"French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier called mass vaccination against the coronavirus during the pandemic “unthinkable” and a historical blunder that is “creating the variants” and leading to deaths from the disease.

“It’s an enormous mistake, isn’t it? A scientific error as well as a medical error. It is an unacceptable mistake,” Montagnier said in an interview translated and published by the RAIR Foundation USA yesterday. “The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”

Many epidemiologists know it and are “silent” about the problem known as “antibody-dependent enhancement,” Montagnier said.

“It is the antibodies produced by the virus that enable an infection to become stronger,” he said in an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month.

While variants of viruses can occur naturally, Montagnier said that vaccination is driving the process. “What does the virus do? Does it die or find another solution?”

“It is clear that the new variants are created by antibody-mediated selection due to the vaccination.” "

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/no...g-the-variants

There's growing debate that he just might be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

FDA? From the link provide from Lou and GIMMFD's overview and no updates that have been provided to change the FDA's classification. Listen, not really going to argue with you on this. I've researched this and some call it gene therapy and some call it a vaccine. From what I've read, IMHO it's a form of gene therapy that acts like a vaccine but is not a traditional vaccine. It is still not approved outside of emergency use by the FDA so I understand why there is skepticism. That and how unnecessarily political all things COVID have become.

If YOU believe what has been provided is mis-info please provide links to the FDA's re-classification on Moderna and we can discuss. It happens to fall in with the other research I've done and I hadn't heard of the FDA's view on Moderna until now (thanks Lou).

---

Sure. It currently is not listed under approved gene therapy products.

There still may be mRNA products that could blur the lines on gene therapy, such as those that suppress a defective gene (some cancer cells). Again I wouldn’t consider them gene therapy since they don’t enter the nucleus and alter current genes, however they do alter the current gene’s ability to malfunction.

The mRNA vaccine enters cytoplasm with about 200,00 other mRNA pieces that ask the cell to carry out some sort function. When it spits out a protein that our body creates an immune response that is a different category of medicine. Since these vaccines didn’t exist for FDA approval at the time of the link provided there is no need to reclassify something that has not been classified. The technology had a classification perhaps in a broad sense, which is not a specific classification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Sure. It currently is not listed under approved gene therapy products.

There still may be mRNA products that could blur the lines on gene therapy, such as those that suppress a defective gene (some cancer cells). Again I wouldn’t consider them gene therapy since they don’t enter the nucleus and alter current genes, however they do alter the current gene’s ability to malfunction.

The mRNA vaccine enters cytoplasm with about 200,00 other mRNA pieces that ask the cell to carry out some sort function. When it spits out a protein that our body creates an immune response that is a different category of medicine. Since these vaccines didn’t exist for FDA approval at the time of the link provided there is no need to reclassify something that has not been classified. The technology had a classification perhaps in a broad sense, which is not a specific classification.

---

Is it listed under another approved category? It is my understanding it is approved for emergency use as an mRNA and in 2018 the category was gene therapy. The rest is your opinion and is as much mid-info as anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

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.”

---

This just struck me - is it possible that the delta variant is a product of the vaccinated? Like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, could the virus evolve from the vaccine-resistant viruses?

Just a reminder, if the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus, vaccines will not make it go away.

Edit: just saw this was addressed in Lou’s post above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

This just struck me - is it possible that the delta variant is a product of the vaccinated? Like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, could the virus evolve from the vaccine-resistant viruses?

If the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus, vaccines will not make it go away.

---

Some have suggested exactly that, of course if the suggestions are coming from one of the unapproved sources they will be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on it, I don’t think anyone does…but that’s the thing, most seem to have their minds made up and there is no real way to know some of these things for certain at this point, more time is needed to test this *brand new* injection. It has all moved way, way too fast.

Here is another article that states the same thing as above in regards to the fully vaccinated transmitting COVID *just as easily* as the unvaccinated. This is coming from the same government officials who have and who still are claiming this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. They are contradicting themselves

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-covid...170000960.html

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study on Friday which suggests that fully vaccinated people can transmit the Delta variant of the coronavirus just as easily as the unvaccinated - a find that may change the calculus of what's safe for vaccinated people to do, now that the Delta variant is responsible for more than 80% of US cases.”

How can it simultaneously be said that the unvaccinated are to blame for the increased cases when the evidence suggests the vaccinated can transmit it “just as easily” as the unvaccinated? It does no good to point out that the unvaccinated are more likely to be seriously ill or die, because that truly is a personal decision.

For those on this board who are blaming the unvaccinated for the increase in cases, what do you make of this news?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

This just struck me - is it possible that the delta variant is a product of the vaccinated? Like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, could the virus evolve from the vaccine-resistant viruses?

Just a reminder, if the vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus, vaccines will not make it go away.

Edit: just saw this was addressed in Lou’s post above.

---

I don’t know one way or another but the delta variant originated in India in February before anyone in India was fully vaccinated. India’s vaccination rate was not quick to rise either and only 7% are fully vaccinated as of today. Tough to have a cause and effect there… seems like a stretch to me. Variants will continue to pop up as long as there are perpetually circulating cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

How can it simultaneously be said that the unvaccinated are to blame for the increased cases when the evidence suggests the vaccinated can transmit it “just as easily” as the unvaccinated? It does no good to point out that the unvaccinated are more likely to be seriously ill or die, because that truly is a personal decision.

---

Question: insurances have higher premiums for those that smoke. Do you think that is ok? Should those that are unvaccinated have higher premiums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Question: insurances have higher premiums for those that smoke. Do you think that is ok? Should those that are unvaccinated have higher premiums?

---

Damn straight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xukeith

Damn straight

---

And I guess why not have everyone get the flu shot as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Question: insurances have higher premiums for those that smoke. Do you think that is ok? Should those that are unvaccinated have higher premiums?

---

I am asking how, if it turns out to be the case that the vaccinated and unvaccinated spread the virus at the same or a similar rate, the unvaccinated can be blamed for spreading the virus? Please address this question.

Now, if we are discussing insurance premiums, then their might be an argument that the unvaccinated, if they are creating more hospital expense and early deaths, even if only for themselves, should pay higher insurance premiums. But this is quite different from blaming them for the spread, which is what is under discussion.

But to answer your question with a series of questionsÂ…

Question: If it turns out the vaccine causes long term health issues, do we increase premiums for those who rushed in to get the vaccine before enough data was available? Or is this a one way street?

Question: Given most people who get COVID recover fully, so we only increase insurance premiums on those who go to the hospital?

Question: Should we up charge the obese given obesity has been demonstrated to be a highly correlated factor in deaths?

Question: It is a small sample size but supported by several studies, of those I know personally who have required hospitalization or have died from COVID, all of them where deficient in the vitamins known to strengthen the immune system (vitamin C, D, Zinc, etc). Do we increase premiums for those who personally choose to eat poorly? Or are we only going to increase premiums for those who donÂ’t follow the single, narrow-minded recommendation to get an injection of a brand new, largely untested (relative to all past precedence for a vaccine) injection?

Question: Where does this thinking end? What about the flu shot? What about the booster? What about the next injection? Fauci is asking Congress for 20 billion per year to begin developing vaccines for the next potential pandemic. Should we all be prepared to get the next experimental injection or be ready to pay higher insurance premiums? Being forced to inject experimental drugs for a disease that causes harsh flu symptoms or less for lost people is an extreme suggestion.

This country and its medical establishment is obsessed with drugs and surgery. What should be the last option in many, many instances, is instead the first and default option. The collective mindset about vaccinations makes this abundantly clear. After quite a bit of reading I believe one of the biggest causes of the struggles in the US with COVID, compared to other nations, is the overall health of our population. We can blame Trump for not having a better plan of action, but nothing was going to mitigate a nation of unhealthy people obsessed with McDonald’s, Applebee’s, and Lord forgive me for saying it, Chick-fil-A. I believe the masking, social distancing, sterilizing, and locking down have done far less for those who practiced these things than eating healthy and taking supplements helped those who made choices to be healthy. Everything I’ve read (I read mostly mainstream news, a little bit of alternative media, and a some natural health news) and everything I’ve witnessed personally supports this conclusion. Of course “eat better, exercise, take personal responsibility” does not make mega corps and patent holders rich and politicians more powerful, so we don’t hear a lot about that on CNN or Fox News, the two opposite ends of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Principal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xuwillie

And I guess why not have everyone get the flu shot as well

---

And on and on, ad infinitum. Fauci wants billions each year to begin developing experimental drugs for the next possible pandemic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/h...-vaccines.html

It looks like vaccinations are going to be a perpetual money maker going forward. The free shots are not free, they will eventually be paid for by raised taxes. It does not matter whether taxes are raised on the rich or the poor. If on the poor, then the poor pay the taxes. If on the rich, who control the production of all of the goods and services used by everyone else, then they just raise prices on the poor, so the poor pay anyway! It is a grand system.

Principal

The “logic” in this article is headache inducing:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/30/h...mpression=true

Principal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

The “logic” in this article is headache inducing:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/30/h...mpression=true

Principal

---

First sentence in this article is apropos for recent conversation:

"Vaccination alone won't stop the rise of new variants and in fact could push the evolution of strains that evade their protection, researchers warned Friday."

To my point that I've made a few times on this thread - we are trying to play God with this, and the virus is winning. We should've of taken Sweden's approach, because in the end, "the virus is gonna virus". I fully understand the mitigation efforts we tried in the very beginning (note: I too was concerned with this in March - hell, we washed our groceries for a couple of weeks!), however, once we realized that the virus was most dangerous to older people and those with comorbidities, we should've taken steps to protect them, and simply allowed the virus to run it's course through healthier populations (younger). I believe we would've achieved herd immunity long ago, and this would be mostly behind us by now.

This was totally mismanaged. Prior to the pandemic the WHO had studies that clearly showed that lockdown don't work. And yet, world leaders ignored them. They need to get out of the way because they keep making the same mistakes.

Have you ever heard the expression "get a second opinion"? Well, the powers that be are making this increasingly more difficult. What are they trying to hide?

(July 29, 2021) – The Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released the following statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

https://www.americaoutloud.com/a-dar...se-is-upon-us/

This is absolutely fundamental as to what is driving extreme skepticism on all aspects of this pandemic. The suppression of dissent on all fronts - the government, social media, big tech and various medical organizations - is driving millions of people in America (and across the world) to not believe a single word coming from government and medical officials. If we can't have open discussions and debate - if we can't see detailed data - we skeptics can only conclude that they are lying to us, are hiding things from us, and/or have some type of an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU_Lou

Have you ever heard the expression "get a second opinion"? Well, the powers that be are making this increasingly more difficult. What are they trying to hide?

(July 29, 2021) – The Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released the following statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

https://www.americaoutloud.com/a-dar...se-is-upon-us/

This is absolutely fundamental as to what is driving extreme skepticism on all aspects of this pandemic. The suppression of dissent on all fronts - the government, social media, big tech and various medical organizations - is driving millions of people in America (and across the world) to not believe a single word coming from government and medical officials. If we can't have open discussions and debate - if we can't see detailed data - we skeptics can only conclude that they are lying to us, are hiding things from us, and/or have some type of an agenda.

---

Most dangerous line: Consensus-driven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Question: insurances have higher premiums for those that smoke. Do you think that is ok? Should those that are unvaccinated have higher premiums?

---

You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what you’ve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

Principal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what you’ve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

Principal

---

Just imagine this conversation in the context of Single Payer Healthcare…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Most dangerous line: Consensus-driven.

---

Bingo!

http://www.xavierhoops.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Smails http://www.xavierhoops.com/images/bu...post-right.png
What does being college educated have to do with anything when it comes to making personal choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Hopefully an increased ability to discern fact from fiction.

---

We agree on this Paul. Except to discern fact from fiction, one needs strong critical thinking skills. You know, the opposite of blindly following the CDC bible and the Gospel according to Fauci.

This is just a reminder that lockdowns have proven not only to be ineffective, but counterproductive; and that face coverings do not stop COVID-19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what you’ve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

Principal

---

Going to reply to both long messages at once as it is a lot to reply to…

I am not arguing for higher premiums, I just asked a question. Why do we care about the spread of the virus? Because we don’t want people to get sick and die, primarily. However another reason is the burden to healthcare and society. It’s expensive to get and treat covid. Look how much it cost to have a hospitalization due to covid. It’s a lot of cash on average. And again, regardless of spread, those vaccinated don’t typically end up in the hospital or dead at the same rate as unvaccinated folks. Obviously we can use other risk factors (age, BMI, etc) but you described it as a personal choice to be vaccinated. I don’t disagree but insurance companies already charge more to smokers, obese individuals, people with preexisting conditions that make them more costly. Some of those conditions are a result of personal choices. I specified smoking because it is the most associated with a choice. Nobody is a smoker their entire life, however other conditions including obesity may have been present since childhood.

The reason I asked the question was not to suggest that should be the case but when vaccinated and unvaccinated folks are both spreading the disease, the burden of illness is still mostly with those unvaccinated, because they cost more to treat on average.

Nearly every major healthcare system in the US already requires the flu vaccine for employees. Mandates are coming soon like it or not as full FDA approval is around the corner on the vaccines. Once the mandates start, the insurance premium increases follow.

The real tricky part is where do people that have had the illness fall in this category? It’s less likely to be hospitalized after initial covid illness but it also still happens the second time around as well just as a breakthrough case can occur. If someone has record of a positive test in the last 12 months could they be grandfathered into the “mostly immune” group?

I would rather not get into the whole vitamin discussion… same goes for herbals and supplements. There’s not good data for them but they probably don’t cause harm unless in excess. I actually had a patient with zinc toxicity about 3-4 months ago. Levels were off the charts and had all sorts of issues. Thought they were fighting off covid instead of taking the vaccine. Again, their choice but nothing is without risk.

Lots of questions for sure. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another regarding insurance premiums. Just thought it was pertinent regarding how our choice affects others in many ways.

And yes, in a single payer system a vaccine mandate would be even more of a cluster F. It would be the same attitude magnified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Going to reply to both long messages at once as it is a lot to reply to…

I am not arguing for higher premiums, I just asked a question. Why do we care about the spread of the virus? Because we don’t want people to get sick and die, primarily. However another reason is the burden to healthcare and society. It’s expensive to get and treat covid. Look how much it cost to have a hospitalization due to covid. It’s a lot of cash on average. And again, regardless of spread, those vaccinated don’t typically end up in the hospital or dead at the same rate as unvaccinated folks. Obviously we can use other risk factors (age, BMI, etc) but you described it as a personal choice to be vaccinated. I don’t disagree but insurance companies already charge more to smokers, obese individuals, people with preexisting conditions that make them more costly. Some of those conditions are a result of personal choices. I specified smoking because it is the most associated with a choice. Nobody is a smoker their entire life, however other conditions including obesity may have been present since childhood.

The reason I asked the question was not to suggest that should be the case but when vaccinated and unvaccinated folks are both spreading the disease, the burden of illness is still mostly with those unvaccinated, because they cost more to treat on average.

Nearly every major healthcare system in the US already requires the flu vaccine for employees. Mandates are coming soon like it or not as full FDA approval is around the corner on the vaccines. Once the mandates start, the insurance premium increases follow.

The real tricky part is where do people that have had the illness fall in this category? It’s less likely to be hospitalized after initial covid illness but it also still happens the second time around as well just as a breakthrough case can occur. If someone has record of a positive test in the last 12 months could they be grandfathered into the “mostly immune” group?

I would rather not get into the whole vitamin discussion… same goes for herbals and supplements. There’s not good data for them but they probably don’t cause harm unless in excess. I actually had a patient with zinc toxicity about 3-4 months ago. Levels were off the charts and had all sorts of issues. Thought they were fighting off covid instead of taking the vaccine. Again, their choice but nothing is without risk.

Lots of questions for sure. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another regarding insurance premiums. Just thought it was pertinent regarding how our choice affects others in many ways.

And yes, in a single payer system a vaccine mandate would be even more of a cluster F. It would be the same attitude magnified.

---

I’ll save you all a lot of trouble. Actuary tables. <mic drop>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Going to reply to both long messages at once as it is a lot to reply to…

. I don’t disagree but insurance companies already charge more to smokers, obese individuals, people with preexisting conditions that make them more costly. Some of those conditions are a result of personal choices. I specified smoking because it is the most associated with a choice. Nobody is a smoker their entire life, however other conditions including obesity may have been present since childhood.

---

Unless they are on Medicare/Medicaid or both.

Massive Protests Worldwide Against China Virus Vaccine Passports:

https://gellerreport.com/2021/07/inc...assports.html/

Go ahead Joe, just try to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Unless they are on Medicare/Medicaid or both.

---

Government is a different ball of wax. There are several private insurances that don’t charge extra for smokers or obese members, but there are many that do.

Completely anecdotal but sums up my feelings pretty well:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/im-ic...130001363.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

Completely anecdotal but sums up my feelings pretty well:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/im-ic...130001363.html

---

Overly emotional and lacking substance? I kid. I feel for the healthcare workers. They’ve had a brutal 18 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

Hopefully an increased ability to discern fact from fiction.

---

Right. I mean, this is a message board for a College Basketball program. Hopefully we all believe that College has some value, and I would argue that one of the core things that College does (or at least should do) is teach one how to think objectively.

If you don't want to get the vaccine because you are not properly interpreting studies / data, I'd argue that while you may be making a personal choice, you aren't really doing in the best way because your premise is flawed.

I'm not really sure how to think about the people who don't want to get the vaccine because it is 'experimental'. I'm don't know what 'experimental' means in this context, and I'm also not aware of any past vaccines that have been found to have significant side effects months or years down the road. Over 100MM people have received these vaccines with no significant side effects. You are overlooking a mountain of evidence based on what seems to me to amount to a hunch/superstition that is contradicted by all available (credible) evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

Right. I mean, this is a message board for a College Basketball program. Hopefully we all believe that College has some value, and I would argue that one of the core things that College does (or at least should do) is teach one how to think objectively.

If you don't want to get the vaccine because you are not properly interpreting studies / data, I'd argue that while you may be making a personal choice, you aren't really doing in the best way because your premise is flawed.

I'm not really sure how to think about the people who don't want to get the vaccine because it is 'experimental'. I'm don't know what 'experimental' means in this context, and I'm also not aware of any past vaccines that have been found to have significant side effects months or years down the road. Over 100MM people have received these vaccines with no significant side effects. You are overlooking a mountain of evidence based on what seems to me to amount to a hunch/superstition that is contradicted by all available (credible) evidence.

---

College also should teach people to think critically, and to seek data and information to backup what one is told. The bold above is completely incorrect.

There are over 400,000 reports of adverse events related to the COVID vaccines in the CDC's VAERS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (hhs.gov). These are mostly mild and indicative of an immune response, but some are very serious including over 6,000 deaths.

I understand that the risks are small with the hundreds of millions of vaccinated people, but it is a risk to weigh against the risks of COVID, which vary greatly based on age, health and natural immunity. The answer for one is not the answer for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

College also should teach people to think critically, and to seek data and information to backup what one is told. The bold above is completely incorrect.

There are over 400,000 reports of adverse events related to the COVID vaccines in the CDC's VAERS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (hhs.gov). These are mostly mild and indicative of an immune response, but some are very serious including over 6,000 deaths.

I understand that the risks are small with the hundreds of millions of vaccinated people, but it is a risk to weigh against the risks of COVID, which vary greatly based on age, health and natural immunity. The answer for one is not the answer for all.

---

VAERS data is self reported and not verified. Per their website: "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine." - https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

The J&J vaccine was shutdown after 6 deaths in order to conduct more research. Do you really believe that if there was 6,000 deaths tied to the vaccine that they wouldn't pause that vaccine to study the causes mores?

The sad part is that I am not telling you anything you do not already know. You have posted enough links and articles in this thread to show that you have made an attempt to study this information. So either your "research" has a giant blind spot, or you know full well the limitations of VAERS data and decided to intentionally spread misinformation by not putting the data in proper context. While I am not normally one to assign malevolence to someone's motivation when ignorance would explain it, in this case I will make an exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

VAERS data is self reported and not verified. Per their website: "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine." - https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

The J&J vaccine was shutdown after 6 deaths in order to conduct more research. Do you really believe that if there was 6,000 deaths tied to the vaccine that they wouldn't pause that vaccine to study the causes mores?

The sad part is that I am not telling you anything you do not already know. You have posted enough links and articles in this thread to show that you have made an attempt to study this information. So either your "research" has a giant blind spot, or you know full well the limitations of VAERS data and decided to intentionally spread misinformation by not putting the data in proper context. While I am not normally one to assign malevolence to someone's motivation when ignorance would explain it, in this case I will make an exception.

---

Anti-vax is a religion for some folks, which is why I don't think that the VAERS data should be taken too seriously by lay people (or anyone really). I remember when the rapper DMX died recently people were blaming the COVID vaccine. Not his decades of publicly known drug and alcohol abuse, the COVID vaccine. There is a group of people who are anti-vax zealots akin to flat earthers, and I don't think that we can trust self-reported data in that environment.

I would place much more stock in anything that is medically verified, for example from any of the large vaccine studies. Presumably Doctors are following up on any reports of deaths etc. potentially due to the vaccine.

As for the 400K plus reports of 'adverse effects', I don't really consider a day of chills / fatigue to be an 'adverse effect'. At this point these vaccines have been pretty extensively studied, and widely used. It's highly unlikely that point that there are any nefarious long term side effects. You can always play the 'what if' game, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

VAERS data is self reported and not verified. Per their website: "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine." - https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

The J&J vaccine was shutdown after 6 deaths in order to conduct more research. Do you really believe that if there was 6,000 deaths tied to the vaccine that they wouldn't pause that vaccine to study the causes mores?

The sad part is that I am not telling you anything you do not already know. You have posted enough links and articles in this thread to show that you have made an attempt to study this information. So either your "research" has a giant blind spot, or you know full well the limitations of VAERS data and decided to intentionally spread misinformation by not putting the data in proper context. While I am not normally one to assign malevolence to someone's motivation when ignorance would explain it, in this case I will make an exception.

---

I am generally pro-vax. I have a difficult time seeing justification for many who refuse to do so. I do, however, realize that there are personal, religious, medical, risk vs reward reasons that I don't fully understand but (somewhat) respect because I don't know it all.

That being said, the causation vs correlation is often difficult to confirm with an adequate degree of certainty particularly without an extended period of documentation (but increases with the #N). I respect that VAERS is honest enough to make this point and don't really see it as a indication of fatal flaw in the data and conclusion.