Totally fair, I just did the quick math on the numbers the other poster provided. Point still stands that by their own math or the exact numbers trying to compare Covid to any other major cause of death points to it being pretty significant.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You beat me to it.

Death rates for mandatory vaccinations for school include:
Measles- which you mentioned as 2 in 1000
Mumps- which you mentioned as 1 in 10000
Varicella Zoster (chickenpox)- 1-20 deaths per 100,000 cases depending on age
Rubella- almost no deaths. 1 in 5000 chance of encephalitis, most fully recover
Polio- 2-30% but basically 0% if you start talking about using iron lungs
H Flu- 3-6% under 6 years old, higher over 65 years old, almost no deaths between those ages
Pertussis- 1-4% only in those less than 5 years old. Very rare deaths otherwise
Tetanus- 30%
Diptheria- 5-10%
Pneumococcal pneumonia- 5-7%

So Covid's death rates fall right in line with measles, mumps, varicella zoster, rubells and pertussis, especially when you figure the fact that is more contagious than any of these except for measles and it has a vulnerable population in the elderly.

I think measles is the closest comparison. Extremely contagious, most people will have mild to moderate symptoms like a cold or flu, some people will have severe disease with long term problems, and some people will die. Yet the measles vaccine has been entirely uncontroversial for 50 years and no one yells about "freedom" when it comes to mandatory measles vaccines.

---

Now do rabies

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Rabies isn't a mandated school vaccine, and I was specifically listing mandated school vaccines. So I'm not sure your point.

Anyway, rabies is 100% fatal, but vaccinating for it is expensive and complicated.

---

exactly my point.

in what universe are public schools going to make a EUA vaccine mandatory?

I know this is slightly off topic but I think relevant to the conversation.

Was there this much backlash during the rollout for the measles vaccine? I really have no idea.


We don't even think about it now. We just do it. I wonder how long it took society to get to that point.

FratboyLegend said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

cone said:

---

in what universe are public schools going to make a EUA vaccine mandatory?

---

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Someone pointed out the fatality rate of COVID as an argument that not only should vaccines not be mandated, but vaccines aren't needed at all. 94chem and I just pointed out that the death rate of COVID is similar to many other diseases where vaccination is widely accepted, encouraged, and even mandatory.

---

NOT FOR CHILDREN.

I cannot stress this enough. We inoculate children from the diseases you listed because those diseases are a threat TO THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES.

Why do we do this? Because children are required by law to attend school!

The fact that smart people cannot draw this distinction is incredibly infuriating. We inoculate the kids to keep the kids safe, not to keep the population at large safe!

---

Agreed, I'd like to know which vaccine kids currently take to protect adults.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

You know what's cool about vaccinating for chickenpox with the attenuated form of the virus? You're virtually guaranteed not to get shingles as an adult.

Another cool thing about vaccinating kids for something like HepA - a typically mild or asymptomatic illness in kids - is that it decreases the chance of kids (a very common vector) spreading it to adults who tend to have more severe illness from it.


AgAlaska - I don't think there was this much resistance to measles vaccine (though I was not alive at the time). I wonder if it has to do with the internet and the increased Dunning-Kruger effect. I wonder what would have happened if we derided the PhDs who developed the small pox or polio vaccines, instead of eradicating one and virtually eradicating the other.

ETA: Forgot about HPV. While we're arguing about it promoting promiscuity in this country, Australia has virtually eliminated cervical cancer strains of HPV and substantially reduced genital warts in their country.

---

You know what else is cool? We have a Shingles vaccine for adults who want it. They can make that choice later in life if they feel they need protection.

Hep A, as you state, is not a risk to kids. We do not inoculate child --> adult vectors in this country. That has been politically adjudicated and soundly rejected. It's why I raised the rabies question before--same logic. We inoculate dogs but not bats. Dogs because we can and there is limited societal risk to doing so. People, no, by choice. It's not economics as the MD said above...its risk-managed choice. Bats, no, because they are wild and impossible to inoculate.

Regarding Australia and HPV, that is an outcome of highly questionable value and one, by your framing, more fit for Forum 16. I am happy to discuss it with you there as that topic is outside the guidelines of this forum.

Quote:

---

Hep A, as you state, is not a risk to kids. We do not inoculate child --> adult vectors in this country. That has been politically adjudicated and soundly rejected.

---

HepA is also a required public school vaccine

Quote:

---

All that can possibly remain is your immune response to COVID's spike protein

---

Can anyone expand upon this?

Is the immune response created by the mRNA vaccine physiologically analogous to other vaccines? Is there novelty in this design that may influence the immune response in your body in the future to other stimuli? Is the totality of the immune response mechanism understood in such a complete manner that you can be reasonably sure that you're not creating other future immune system issues?

Plenty of drugs have been yanked off the market in the past, very few were pushed as hard as these by politicians and bureaucrats.

The immune response specifically and singularly targets the "foreign matter" that the mRNA in the vaccines directs your cells to produce: the spike protein. There's nothing else for the immune system to react to.

Arguably that's a safer approach that using dead or weakened versions of the virus, no?

Fitch said:

---

The immune response specifically and singularly targets the "foreign matter" that the mRNA in the vaccines directs your cells to produce: the spike protein. There's nothing else for the immune system to react to.

Arguably that's a safer approach that using dead or weakened versions of the virus, no?

---

I don't know, I am trying to figure that out.

Is the immune system reaction proportional to that of a natural infection? The fear that I hear is of an immune system primed to act in novel way that could manifest later when other things change. It's a "prove a negative problem" I am trying to get some context around since the track record isn't there.

chimpanzee said:

---

Fitch said:

---

The immune response specifically and singularly targets the "foreign matter" that the mRNA in the vaccines directs your cells to produce: the spike protein. There's nothing else for the immune system to react to.

Arguably that's a safer approach that using dead or weakened versions of the virus, no?

---

I don't know, I am trying to figure that out.

Is the immune system reaction proportional to that of a natural infection? The fear that I hear is of an immune system primed to act in novel way that could manifest later when other things change. It's a "prove a negative problem" I am trying to get some context around since the track record isn't there.

---

I don't know, but my guess is that it would likely be shorter than an infection of a replicating active virus. The spike isn't replicating and the immune response would be proportional to the amount of mRNA in the vaccine.

Whatever responses that could manifest later would be the same or worse given that the spike is a part of the same virus that would infect "naturally".

Fido04 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Fitch said:

---

The immune response specifically and singularly targets the "foreign matter" that the mRNA in the vaccines directs your cells to produce: the spike protein. There's nothing else for the immune system to react to.

Arguably that's a safer approach that using dead or weakened versions of the virus, no?

---

I don't know, I am trying to figure that out.

Is the immune system reaction proportional to that of a natural infection? The fear that I hear is of an immune system primed to act in novel way that could manifest later when other things change. It's a "prove a negative problem" I am trying to get some context around since the track record isn't there.

---

I don't know, but my guess is that it would likely be shorter than an infection of a replicating active virus. The spike isn't replicating and the immune response would be proportional to the amount of mRNA in the vaccine.

Whatever responses that could manifest later would be the same or worse given that the spike is a part of the same virus that would infect "naturally".

---

So what I have run across may be possible bad info filling in where a sound description of the mechanics is absent. One piece was describing something about stimulating an antigen creation response in your immune system completely foreign to an actual immune response to a natural pathogen. The worst case scenario speculation being haywire immune responses to all kinds of things for the rest of your life. This line of thinking is informed by my ultra-paranoid family that saw multiple relatives given unnecessary treatment by know-it-all doctors that were happy to try all kinds of new stuff on suffering people and a family friend physician who leans heavily toward more homeopathic stuff, they are dead set against the new tech.

This could be way off from how anything actually works physiologically, I'm trying to educate myself on it but end up running into a more explanations of why I should stop looking and just trust the people that are more than happy to mislead me into doing what they want.

Glossing over the mRNA as some kind of no brainer when they had not successfully created one and brought it to market prior to this unprecedented (one way or another) crisis increases hesitancy. Some will take the word of authorities and trust them and others see indemnified manufacturers, squirrely communications, zero track record and unanswered questions as suspicious. When met with smug dismissiveness, the situation smells even worse. We've replaced trust with tribalism and politics.

So is there a particular vaccine that is best for people with natural covid antibodies already? Like one with least chance of knocking you out for couple days.

Don't want it, don't need it, but work frowns on not getting it.

Just get J&J. One and done and arguably least side effects.