OldArmyBrent said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ya the Pfizer study showed no statistical efficiency and whatever it had begins to drop every month. You'd likely need a monthly booster shot to remain effective.

---

Wasnt there something about mRNA vaccines having a tendency to have a catastrophic side effect after some unknown number of doses? I thought I remembered reading that it basically caused death at some point and that you could only know when you got to that dose.

---

Early trials of mRNA vaccines had that problem. No way to know yet if these do. Guess we'll find out if thousands of "fully vaccinated" people start dying.

Go to hell globalist and whomever is in Biden's earpiece

In the study released by Pfizer heart attacks were 4 to 1 in vaccine population versus in vaccinated.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ya the Pfizer study showed no statistical efficiency and whatever it had begins to drop every month. You'd likely need a monthly booster shot to remain effective.

---

Monthly?

For the vaccine to remain effective according to the study yes.

Here's the study I referenced.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

Salute The Marines said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Ya the Pfizer study showed no statistical efficiency and whatever it had begins to drop every month. You'd likely need a monthly booster shot to remain effective.

---

Monthly?

---

Don't worry. Fauci will suggest you take it monthly. I'm sure you'll be in line.

I think you may have misunderstood something.

The study reports "91.1% vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was observed from 7 days to 6 months post-dose 2 in >=12-year-old participants. VE against severe disease with onset post-dose 1 was 97%."

They also say " Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of 6% every 2 months."

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Here's the study I referenced.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

---

From the paper you posted.

" Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19."

It's like you guys read up on the science just enough to plan out what to pretend to be outraged about next. There has always been a chance a booster would be required. You knew this and already have been outraged about it for months.

It's a silly look.

I think most on this board have assumed there will be boosters, but I'm not sure that's true of the general public. I think most people believed this was a one time vaccine. We'll see how this is accepted. Of course, I'm sure people will just line up to get this one if they did the first time.

If you look at the charts it's statistically ineffective. Very little difference between the vaxxed group and placebo.

I'd encourage you to read the whole thing and look at the charts.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Here's the study I referenced.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

---

That's yet to be peer reviewed?

Again from the study you posted.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

Ag$08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Here's the study I referenced.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

---

From the paper you posted.

" Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19."

It's like you guys read up on the science just enough to plan out what to pretend to be outraged about next. There has always been a chance a booster would be required. You knew this and already have been outraged about it for months.

It's a silly look.

---

Um, we were told it was 95% effective at preventing illness and transmission after only 2 doses. Then we were told it would reduce symptoms but eliminate transmission, which was also wrong. As you said, most of us knew and warned that boosters would be required. It's only 'silly' that the government is just now admitting it.

---

The efficacy studies never claimed it to be 95% effective at preventing transmission. In fact, they specifically exclude transmission as a primary goal.

Yeah who didn't see this coming.

Question, can you mix and match booster shots or do you have to stay brand loyal?

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Yeah who didn't see this coming.

Question, can you mix and match booster shots or do you have to stay brand loyal?

---

You know what's better than a vaccine passport? TWO vaccine passports!!

Was the multiple booster shots you receive for many other vaccines your first clue?

Reality is not a conspiracy against you.

I read the whole thing. I don't understand how you're coming to that conclusion.

Ag$08 said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Here's the study I referenced.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1

---

From the paper you posted.

" Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19."

It's like you guys read up on the science just enough to plan out what to pretend to be outraged about next. There has always been a chance a booster would be required. You knew this and already have been outraged about it for months.

It's a silly look.

---

It's silly that you believe in the vaccines that don't do squat. I'll take my chances with the Rona before I'll ever take that *****

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Ag$08 said:

---

Was the multiple booster shots you receive for many other vaccines your first clue?

Reality is not a conspiracy against you.

---

You mean, properly tested and FDA approved boosters?

---

All three authorized Covid vaccines were tested prior to roll out and the studies have been made public.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I dont have any vaccinations that require an annual booster outside of the highly ineffective flu shot

They are in the dark and throwing crap against the wall on these vaccines right now

---

Here is the typical vaccine schedule. Several vaccines require boosters to establish maximum efficacy.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html#birth-15

Lol has anything covid related

Ag$08 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I dont have any vaccinations that require an annual booster outside of the highly ineffective flu shot

They are in the dark and throwing crap against the wall on these vaccines right now

---

Here is the typical vaccine schedule. Several vaccines require boosters to establish maximum efficacy.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html#birth-15

---

Maybe you should read my post more slowly. Please let me know which vaccines that you, as an adult, are getting annual boosters for, other than the aforementioned flu shot

When I called H-E-B pharmacy this afternoon, it seemed like they already had a message regarding the booster.

C@LAg said:

---

"working as designed", my pale hairy ass.

if it had actually been tested, they would have known this before the rollout.

---

All of the vaccines were tested. The results of the original trials are published and freely available.

The lowered efficacy of the COVID vaccines against sympomatic infection is unfortunate, but they are all still extremely effective in reducing the probability of severe cases (i.e. hospitalization) and death.

Since COVID is almost assuredly an endemic disease now, the vaccines have basically turned COVID into just another cold or URI. So while a vaccinated individual may still show symptoms from a SARS-COV-2 infection, most of which would typically be mild, the vaccines still provide a significant benefit.

Look at this. Didn't prevent any deaths against unvaccinated.