Printable View
As I mentioned earlier the pure numbers in Massachusetts are smaller. 10-15 deaths a day compared with 85-100 deaths a day in ohio. So just a couple of breakthrough deaths in a population with a higher percentage of vaccination are going to shift the % quite a bit.
I guess the countries of Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway are just filled with conspiratorial idiots like XU_Lou and MID:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...rippling-heart
Principal
I wish there were a better way to immunize the population without having to be exposed to the spike protein, but it’s a double edged sword. This is why the Pfizer dose will be recommended for most pediatric patients, as a full Moderna dose is not necessary for them, and more spike proteins = higher chance of myocarditis. That said, the setting in which has the most spike protein exposure is the disease itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by principal
https://www.aappublications.org/news...hildren-083121
https://www.newscientist.com/article...n-vaccination/
It’s unlikely to avoid both the disease and the vaccine at this point.
The article demonstrates that there are presumably rational people who draw different conclusions about the vaccines. There was a time when Moderna was considered as safe as Pfizer. Some objected to the shots on the basis that the tech is new and insufficiently tested. It is now the case that entire counties agree in regards to the Moderna vaccine. The truth is, we don’t know what the long term risks are for any of the mRNA vaccines and several countries agree, based on evidence, that it is best to pause the Moderna vaccine rather than subject people to unknown risks. The shots may be vindicated, but it is not unreasonable to be hesitant until further testing is complete and risks are better understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Principal
The countries listed also have some of the highest vaccination rates, so they can afford to be choosey with certain populations. Context matters.
That rationale seems like a slippery slope when it comes to science. Should countries with lower rates take higher risks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Love reading your posts in this thread. I'm guessing(hoping) this wasn't the right word choice that was meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smails
It may seem like a slippery slope because it is. Countries with lower rates and lower supply actually do take more risks, because the risk of the disease still outweighs the risk from the vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADXSTER
There is a constant accumulation of data that will change recommendations, just like every other facet of medicine. Things are constantly changing to give more evidence to a recommendation. What I was referring to is the rate of vaccination in these countries listed being high accompanied by ample supply of other vaccines creates a less urgency to vaccinate the entire population with whatever vaccine is available. They can be choosey per se in which vaccine is given. It doesn’t mean other countries are careless, either. The US has not approved Moderna for pediatric patients because of this concern and because we have enough Pfizer supply. There are many nations that will take what they can get as far as vaccine supply goes. I have a friend who does mission work in Africa, where the rates are very low in some countries. According to her they will often give partial doses to high risk individuals, and many communities don’t want them to even come to their town in fear the workers will bring covid with them. That’s a valid fear too!
It certainly seems greedy that we are getting boosters (I felt a bit of guilt getting mine) while countries are starved for the vaccine.
I submit to you Ireland.
This is the most definitive example of vaccine failure right now. Please, stop with the rationalization and the blind belief that everything that comes out of Fauci's mouth is gospel:
"Waterford city has one of the Ireland’s highest rates of vaccination against Covid-19, but one of its electoral areas has emerged as the place with the highest rate of Covid-19 infection in the State.
The city’s south electoral area has a 14-day incidence rate of 1,486 cases per 100,000 of the population, three times the national average which stands at 493 infections per 100,000 people.
The adjacent electoral area of Tramore-Waterford City West has a 14-day rate of 1,121 per 100,000, according to the latest weekly figures published by the Health Service Executive’s Health Protection Surveillance Centre.
Waterford has the highest rate of vaccination in the country with 99.7 per cent of adults over the age of 18 (as registered in the last census) fully vaccinated. The county has gone from having one of the lowest rates of Covid-19 infection in Ireland to one of the highest."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...ions-1.4707344
https://thelibertydaily.com/irish-ci...e-susceptable/
And please, stop pretending that the vax prevents serious infections. It all depends on how far past someone contracts covid after receiving the vax. The "anti-bodies" injected from the vax wane month after month, until there are basically none in your body. Why do you think they're asking/demanding that you get a booster? Why do you think the % of covid deaths in MASS is hovering around 40% for vaccinated people for the past 6 weeks?
Random thoughts:
1 - Ireland's death rate is less than 1/2 of the USA's. Maybe by getting to the Ireland vaccination rates, we could have prevented a lot of deaths.
2- I've looked at Massachusetts web site, and can't find the numbers referred to: direct covid deaths in vaccinated people. Help if you can. With a lot of people vaccinated, and people dying all the time, are the 40% deaths "from Covid" or from anything and the people happen to be vaccinated.
3 - Have been in Rotary for as long as they have led the fight against Polio, over 35 years. With a massive effort, money and volunteers, polio is down to a couple cases this year in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we were focused on getting everyone vaccinated, we could have saved (as we have with polio) thousands of lives.
4 - Each night I see ads on TV for medicine. At least 1/2 of every spot is devoted to cautions, complications, who shouldn't take the advertised medicine, etc.
Like any vaccine, there are going to be people for whom it is contra-indicated. And there will be some very small percentage of adverse reactions. And like the flu, perhaps we'll have to continue to take shots every year.
The fact that we can't get most of our citizens vaccinated, and help stamp down this disease, is sad for me. I hope you all get your shots.
You shouldn't be sad. The rate of having people vaccinated is going much faster than with Polio.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
I'm pretty sure it took about 8 years for the US to be vaccinated and not everyone participated. It was a 3 or 4 shot system with a booster AND just like today there were a lot of people who didn't trust the vaccine or the long term effects. Also many did not go back for follow up shots.
1) Looks like their 2nd wave is just ramping up.... just give it a little more time before you do your final analysis....Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
2) See third section: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ma...ta-and-updates
3) That's the prevailing narrative, right?
4) How many medicines have been pulled from the market, or drug companies have been sued - after the FDA has approved those drugs?
From the UK Health Security Agency:
"N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination."
https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt-week-42.pdf
"This is evidence that our vaccines may permanently compromise immunity to SARS-2, via Original Antigenic Sin — the phenomenon, long observed in the antibody response to influenza infections, that initial exposure to a pathogen (or a spike protein) shapes all subsequent immune responses to mutated, recombined or reassorted instances of that pathogen. Our Corona vaccines elicit antibodies against the spike protein alone, while natural infection provokes antibodies against other virus proteins as well, including the nucleocapsid or N protein. The broad spectrum of natural immune response is why recovered individuals enjoy much greater and longer-lasting protection, than people who have been merely vaccinated."
"In the very same PHE report, we find an updated version of what is becoming the world’s most disturbing graph. Infections in the vaccinated continue to outpace infections in the unvaccinated by ever greater amounts,"
"Mass vaccination has drastically altered the environment in which SARS-2 circulates. This was always expected to change the behaviour of the virus – just not in this precise way. In return for only limited protection against severe outcomes, the vaccines appear to encourage the spread of SARS-2, in multiple different ways."
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/mas...ay-permanently
From the UK Health Security Agency ----> Check out "Figure 2" on page 17:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt-week-42.pdf
Remember, the UK is much further ahead of the vax curve than the US - so, this is what is coming to the US shortly down the road.
If the rate of infection is higher in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated population, doesn't this imply that the vaccine could be weakening immunity to infection?Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
That is the theory. No one in the mainstream that I'm aware of has acknowledged this, and I don't think anyone in "alternative" media is saying this is proven or fact at this point, but is being discussed as a theory/possible explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by principal
Edit: FWIW, you may want to give this a read for more background - it was just published today:
https://noqreport.com/2021/10/26/bom...riant-is-here/
What's the consensus of the "medical community". You know, SCIENCE!Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
Healthier lifestyle, no masks, no lockdowns, no vaccines…the Amish:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU
Too many people like this and the government would lose control and the medical community would go broke.
A perspective on the situation in the United Kingdom.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/10/25/wh...uk-is-surging/
Paul, I'm going to pull a Jen Psaki on you and circle back to you with regards to #2. In addition to Ireland appearing to be ramping-up into their 2nd wave, there are two other reasons why they may have a lower death rate than the US:Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
* Ireland has a lower number of senior citizens. 13.8% of their population is 65+, vs 16.5% for the US.
* Ireland also has a much lower obesity rate than the US: 25.3% vs. 36.2%
https://ourworldindata.org/obesity
THAT is a LOT of obesity, but I must say it very believable.
I’m surprised the US obesity rate isn’t higher than that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you believe that guy is Amish I have some land in Holmes county Ohio to sell you!Quote:
Originally Posted by principal
Huge Amish/Mennonite community in Sarasota, FL where we used to live. Old friends say their community was devastated by the virus. Take that as you like. Those who survived were apparently fine with the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
Go walk down the beach one day. It’s shocking, and NOT in a good way. I won’t get into the clothing police aspect of this…….
.
Yes and anyone who has ever dealt with Amish know the last thing they want is attention or interviews on TV. That guy was not Amish, sorry. Maybe ex-Amish however.Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
Many many Amish died from covid, most were not reported which is fine by them. The life expectancy is generally 5-10 years less in that community and the infant mortality rate is pretty high. They deal with death a lot better than most of the population for better or worse.
It is. That data was 5 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
Did anyone else happen to catch Scott Sloane’s show on WLW yesterday? He somehow got a copy of a document that a local company, but with a global recognition (wonder who that could be [emoji2357]), is requesting those claiming a religious exemption for not getting vaccinated need to complete. Based on the questions, I’m wondering if it’s fake. I don’t remember all of them, but I’ll mention the ones I do.
They want to know the name of the religion under which you’re claiming the exemption, the name, address, phone number, and a contact name for the church you attend, the attendance policy of said church, and your actual attendance at services at the church. They’re also asking if you have taken any other vaccinations at any point in your life or if any of your family members have ever taken any vaccinations. If you, or they, have, what makes this vaccination different under your religion.
There were a lot of other incredibly intrusive questions that I’m not remembering. At the bottom of the document, the employee must sign, acknowledging that everything is true, and that if the company determines anything is false, you understand that you can be terminated from your employment.
I find it hard to believe that the attorneys and HR pros at a global company would allow this. I understand that they’re trying to counter those employees who simply don’t want to get vaccinated and want to use religion as an excuse.
If the document is real, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What questions do you think a company should ask when determining whether or not to allow a religious example?Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
I’m not sure, but I think some of these are a bit too far. Asking for a contact at your church so they can check to see how frequently you attend? Asking about vaccinations taken by other family members? I don’t see the relevance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you attend attend church in a horse and buggy?
I don’t attend church.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you claim a religious exemption?Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z
[]Yes
[]No
If that is the only questions asked, then you might as well have a personal preference exemption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
The Washington State head coach who was recently fired had to prove it by answering in depth questions as well. He is Catholic. He was denied a religious exemption. He is suing. He will waste a lot of time and money. He will lose.
He might get something out of it. I know the Pope says people should get vaccinated, but everyone on this board, at least, should know that the Pope doesn't exactly speak for all Catholics. My daughter has had religion teachers at her high school claiming that no Catholic should take the vaccine due to something to do with fetal tissue in the vaccine or in testing or something I didn't pay much attention to. He might be able to use his Catholic faith to make Wazzu nervous enough to settle. ESPN writing an article hostile to him doesn't mean he's going to lose.
At my high school I had Christian Brothers for things like biology and chemistry, but we had lay people for “religion” classes. I respected that immensely. We had assignments like going to a service for every religion around to open your mind, rather than preaching one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Regardless, I’m not sure if this is a territory where they should be treading.
I'm not saying I agree with them here, but I don't think there's really any territory in people's lives where religion should not be allowed to tread.
I believe that sect of Catholicism is called Protestants.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I am sure that teacher also tells the students not to take acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, tylenol, pepto bismol, tums, ex-lax, benadryl, sudafed, preparation H, claritin, or zoloft for the same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I agree if you have a sincerely held religious belief, then reasonable accommodations should be made for you, such as substituting frequent testing or requirements that you work from home. However, your politics isn't a religion.
Problem for the WSU coach is he never mentioned publicly or privately to the school that his hesitancy was due to religious reasons. HE actually specifically stated what his questions and concerns were, privately when WSU set him up with a leading expert doctor, and they weren't religious.
He also has to show how he has applied those religious concerns already in his life.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that was his last ditch attempt at getting an exemption.
Does WSU maybe still settle to save the time and money anyway? Maybe, but I from everything I have read about these issues that have gone to court the employer has won.
I didn't find it particularly compelling that he didn't mention his religious concerns when WSU set him up to speak with a doctor. Why would that have come up in his conversation with the doctor? And I also don't think it's at all compelling that he didn't mention his religious reasons for hesitancy earlier (particularly publicly) since people are allowed (often encouraged) to keep their religious beliefs private. However, if he cannot show that he has applied his religious beliefs/concerns in other aspects of his life, then I definitely think his case gets very difficult.