i actually dont agree. You cant 'do your own research'

I tried and it was obvious that there is no way to screen or vet anything for truth. And things that once appeared true at one point were later proven to have been 100% fabricated.

The best you could do is talk to doctors you know and personally trust, but you have to recognize that the medical community has no better access to true information than you do, other than their personal anecdotal experience.

I think that we do disagree. There is a vast amount of information available, right down to the actual studies if you want to go that far.

Did some initial positions prove wrong as more data became available? Sure. Were there some positions that were taken for other than scientific reasons (e.g., don't mask because they do nothing, which appears to have been stated to avoid a run on supply)? Possibly. Are there aspects for which there are no answers (e.g., the "true" origin of the virus)? Yes.

But for me and my family, the analysis is pretty straightforward. Is the virus "real", is it killing people and causing long term problems, is it increasingly easy to contract, etc.? Plenty of information to weigh those issues. On the other hand, is the vaccine safe and is it effective? Plenty of data on that as well.

On neither issue is the data 100%, nor can it be. Everyone is different. Their base immune systems are different. For every anecdote there is a 100% contrary anecdote for that very reason.

But there is enough to make a reasoned decision. Rejecting all of the data as totally unreliable is, in itself, simply a means of avoiding responsibility for making a decision, and amounts (by default) to a "no vaccine" decision.

I wouldn't have been comfortable being vaccine #1 or even 1,000,000. I believe there is enough information to make a decision a year+ (and really much longer than that, given the prior research and testing of mRNA vaccines) and tens of millions of vaccines later to make a reasoned decision of the risk/benefit. If ten years from now the decision appears wrong, so be it.

It's just hard to think that ten years from now complications from the vaccine will finally show up.

cbr said:

---

i actually dont agree. You cant 'do your own research'

I tried and it was obvious that there is no way to screen or vet anything for truth. And things that once appeared true at one point were later proven to have been 100% fabricated.

The best you could do is talk to doctors you know and personally trust, but you have to recognize that the medical community has no better access to true information than you do, other than their personal anecdotal experience.

---

The highlighted portion is nonsense. I have access to plenty of clear cut information. Sure, while the general public may technically have access to most of this information, as well, most have no way of knowing how to interpret it or which studies are worth their time and which can be ignored due to study design.

The vaccine is safe and it is effective, period. Anyone saying otherwise has clearly not read any of the studies on the subject. You want some true information? All you need to do is to ask for it.

Safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Quote:

---

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.

---

Safety and efficacy of the Moderna vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

Quote:

---

The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups.

---

Efficacy of Pfizer vaccine and AstraZenica vaccine vs delta variant: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

Quote:

---

RESULTS

Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant.

---

There is your true information.

These vaccines will likely save more lives this year than all the US populations statins and blood pressure meds combined and will have fewer severe side effects. They are possibly one of the greatest scientific achievements of the last several decades.

Don't be a wimp, get your vaccine.

Well stated. Kudos to you for taking the time, and hopefully more folks will come around.

Deserves its own thread

It can and is being discussed ad nauseum, but the fact of the matter is that in the midst of an unprecedented event, the level of certainty that you are seeking does not and cannot exist.

Yes, the vaccine was developed quickly (though with more background research that its typically given credit), but what was the alternative? Multiple years of development was not an option.

Yes, the pharma companies had an indemnity, but how could it be otherwise? As a long-time attorney, I can tell you that there is no way they would have stepped up without it.

Yes, some of the speakers on these issues may be politically or financially motivated, but there is a vast amount of factual information available. Not all definitive, not all 100%, but the fallacy is believing that one can ever have that level of certainty.

Every concern on your list it arguably, to a degree, valid. But each one is also an inevitability when responding to a true crisis. The option of waiting years to work out each of those literally would have cost 100's of thousands - if not millions - of lives.

Analysis paralysis is a real thing. If one holds out for 100% certainty, one will never act. That is fine - everyone has a choice - but the consequences can be substantial.

Agreed.

But the elite specialists are the ones who are then being painted as quacks even though what they are saying comes across as genuine concern.
They are accused of just trying to get famous, or make money off their appearances.

Well, I guess if your baseline is that you've written off your doctors, all other doctors, the medical research community, all of academia, the most respected medical journals in the world, pharmacists, the pharmacology research community, and all the other people and organizations involved in dealing with a previously unexperienced global health emergency as all being corrupt liars and cheats then you're in a tough spot about how to move forward.

Good luck managing your health with YouTube videos, I guess.

I'm not looking for 100% certainty.
I will speak for myself when I say I have concerns.

My wife is a 30+ year RN on the telemetry floor and she has been right in the middle of this since it's inception.
She and I both have had COVID-19 so you would think there would be some level of, if not immunity then at least a T-cell response long term.
But she is feeling pressure from her hospital administration to still get the vaccine despite that. There have also been rumblings of it becoming mandatory throughout the hospital system if you want to keep your job. (See Memorial Herman)
So forgive me if I want as much information as I can find and want to look at both sides of things before I give an answer to my wife, who is feeling lots of anxiety, on what she should do when that happens.
I will tell you what my response will not be. It will not tell her to "shut up and take" it like so many on this board seem fond of saying in one way or another.

Quote:

---

These vaccines will likely save more lives this year than all the US populations statins and blood pressure meds combined and will have fewer severe side effects. They are possibly one of the greatest scientific achievements of the last several decades.

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

Well, I guess if your baseline is that you've written off your doctors, all other doctors, the medical research community, all of academia, the most respected medical journals in the world, pharmacists, the pharmacology research community, and all the other people and organizations involved in dealing with a previously unexperienced global health emergency as all being corrupt liars and cheats then you're in a tough spot about how to move forward.

Good luck managing your health with YouTube videos, I guess.

---

My doctor says under no circumstances should anyone take these vaccines. As did an unrelated doctor i asked.

As far as the most respected medical journals, all the ones i have been cited to have been proven liars on this topic.

The two other doctors i asked were non-committal, basically saying pick your poison.

So i guess i am in a tough spot.

I am here for help, as i would hope people on this board could give legtimate input. And i will read that input.

But anyone who says 'dont be a wimp' or 'you're an idiot for asking questions' just loses all credibility. Based on what IS known for sure, taking that position is utterly absurd.

This is a worldwide health impact - the fact that reliable information is lacking at this point is absolutely absurd.

"Well, I guess if your baseline is that you've written off your doctors, all other doctors, the medical research community, all of academia, the most respected medical journals in the world, pharmacists, the pharmacology research community, and all the other people and organizations involved in dealing with a previously unexperienced global health emergency as all being corrupt liars and cheats then you're in a tough spot about how to move forward.

Good luck managing your health with YouTube videos, I guess."

This is exactly the kind of condescending BS response I'm talking about.
If I don't agree with you then I must be a dumbass.
Got it.

Look I'm not advocating for any of these guys and God knows I'm not trying to change anyone's mind regarding their own choices.
I just want as much information as I can get and some of them (not all I can admit) come across as truly having concerns. They don't all strike me as anti vaxxers or alarmists in what they are saying.
But yet everyone on Texags decides they are quacks and should be ignored cuz their motivations are sinister.
Where is the evidence of that? I'm truly asking.
But don't send me a link to a "fact checker website" as some have done that only says that what these guys are saying is not fact but illustrates no basis as to why or how they came to that conclusion.
I can start up Fact-checkrafer69.com, claim my own expertise and refute anything I want to as fiction. What's amazing to me is that some will take the word of a "fact checker" in a foreign country but yet totally dismiss a doctor with 40 plus years of experience. Talk about confirmation bias.

Lucky for you a credentialed Doctor responded just a few posts up the page with an extremely informative post, supported by direct evidence from one of the world's most respected peer reviewed medical journals. No fact-checker.org nonsense to be seen.

If you're truly looking for the honest, best of our current collective knowledge data on the subject, it's been laid out right here for you.

It should surprise no one that you can find people - including doctors - on either side of this "issue." I could tell you that in addition to every doctor that my family sees, every doctor in my daughter's practice, and every doctor that I know socially have each individually said that they and their families have been vaccinated and the recommend that each of their patients receive it.

If you are looking for unanimity on this (or, really, any) issue, you will forever be confounded. This is highly reminiscent of the use of expert witnesses in trial. I can find a fully-credentialed expert to support just about any conclusion that you want. And - you may be surprised - it is not just because some are ethically-challenged quacks that will say anything for a buck. Physicians - just like other experts and people in general - may be more or less conservative and more or less risk-takers. So they may have good faith beliefs that are contrary to the weight of authority.

Is it possible that the outliers may prove "right" over time? Sure. Is it likely based upon the vast, vast resources that have been thrown into this issue - both in terms of dollars as well as intellectual firepower? No.

As the previous posters have offered, the clear weight of authority, from various unrelated (and differently motivated) sources have all agreed on the relative safety of the vaccine and the cost/benefit. And it's not even close. The choice is really to go with the weight of authority or go with the outliers.

Yes, that really is the choice. You either take the vaccine or you don't. There really isn't a middle ground.

Quote:

---

This is exactly the kind of condescending BS response I'm talking about.
If I don't agree with you then I must be a dumbass.
Got it.

---

Aren't you the same guy that responded to someone with "baaaa" in another thread?

According to a survey conducted by the AMA, 96% of American physicians are vaccinated. If what you are saying about your conversations is true then you are talking to the 4%. Are you comfortable with that? Serious question

CMP-00- said:

---

According to a survey conducted by the AMA, 96% of American physicians are vaccinated. If what you are saying about your conversations is true then you are talking to the 4%. Are you comfortable with that? Serious question

---

Well, here is another example; according to a larger survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), over 60% of physicians declined vaccination.

So who to believe? Look up aaps, and you find wiki hit pieces attacking the organization - for such 'irrational' behaviour as failing to get in line and push for gun control; arguing that illegal immigration is bad for american hospitals, health, and the financial health of the medical industry, expressing privacy concerns over government access to electronic medical records, advocating for open research, as opposed to arbitrary ban on researching hcq with respect to covid, opposing obama care, and other 'unthinkable' positions.

So is aaps a bunch of ducks? Not from their actual actions. Are they being censored and attacked by the mainstream? Absolutely. Does the mainstream have any credibility whatsoever anymore? Absolutely not.


Contrast the ama, which is simply one of the largest political lobbies around, which is trying to 'destroy structural racism' and destroy legal liability or ramifactions for malpractice or worse. As such, the ama is inherently full of ***** Its own platforms are completely incompatible with intellectual honesty

So once again, what to believe?

I have the good fortune to be at least peripherally connected with many of the brightest and most highly respected physicians and physician organizations in the world. My immediate peer group and I frequently attend national and international conferences to stay abreast of data and expert opinion. I don't know a single physician in the AAPS. Not one. Nobody in medicine talks about this organization: they simply do not move the needle. I'm not particularly fond of the AMA's increasing politicization but I do not doubt the results of their survey. In an extremely large local peer group of physicians on the very front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am aware of but 2 unvaccinated physicians. Neither of them are public about their status (not suggesting they "should" be, they deserve privacy like everyone else) but that the unvaccinated physicians are reticent in these times is very telling.

CMP-00- said:

---

I have the good fortune to be at least peripherally connected with many of the brightest and most highly respected physicians and physician organizations in the world. My immediate peer group and I frequently attend national and international conferences to stay abreast of data and expert opinion. I don't know a single physician in the AAPS. Not one. Nobody in medicine talks about this organization: they simply do not move the needle. I'm not particularly fond of the AMA's increasing politicization but I do not doubt the results of their survey. In an extremely large local peer group of physicians on the very front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am aware of but 2 unvaccinated physicians. Neither of them are public about their status (not suggesting they "should" be, they deserve privacy like everyone else) but that the unvaccinated physicians are reticent in these times is very telling.

---

Yeah, that it's not a politically tenable position.

Quote:

---

Yeah, that it's not a politically scientifically tenable position.

---

fify

This is on their Wiki page.

*shrug*

Quote:

---

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association that promotes medical disinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy.

The association was founded in 1943 to oppose a government attempt to nationalize health care.

The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Tom Price.

---

Absolutely agree that anecdote is not science. I am responding to the previous poster's citation of "evidence" from the AAPS and simply making the point that not all evidence is equal - and not all physicians are equal. At the end of the day you follow the advice of the people and the data that you trust. As a physician, a prime directive is to educate and inform the public thru my own accumulated study, learned experience, and assimilation of knowledge relevant to health and medicine. I can't do that if I don't engage my colleagues or the public.

AAPS definitely has supported some unpopular, unconventional medical stances.

Regarding this organization, AAPS claims around 7,000 worldwide members. You don't have to be a US resident or a doctor to join, or even degreed. They only ask that you are connected to the Pharmaceutical industry and when joining they only ask your job title.

In the US alone, there are over one million degreed physicians. The American Medical Association (AMA) has over 240,000 member. To join you must have a US degree of Doctor of Medicine or be enrolled as a medical student.

rafer69 said:

---

I agree with this.
How do we really know what to believe. I'm not anti-vaccine by any means. But I do have plenty of concerns mainly:
1- how quickly the vaccine was created
2- the lack of testing (other than what's going on now)
3- long term affects that are just simply unknown
4- the pressure for everyone to get vaccinated (maybe even becoming made mandatory)
5- the overarching indemnity granted to the pharm companies (has this been the case with previous vaccines?)

I want to know why anyone with a differing opinion than the main stream is considered a quack and why so many on this discussion board would go to such lengths to illustrate that rather than just have a real discussion on the concerns.
Tulsa insinuates that there are monetary or political motivations for these medical professionals who express concern with public health but fails to bring up the monetary or political motivations of the pharmaceutical companies, the CDC etc.
Then you hear people like Not Yet apply pressure saying "stop being a wimp get the vaccine" or usmc saying don't get the vaccine but don't come crying to us when your dying (paraphrasing) or bay fan saying "please stop your hurting other aggies"

Well it's not that simple for everyone and this is supposed to be a place where these things can be discussed.

---

This is the thing that frustrates me and a lot of people though. These companies and the government have been exceptionally transparent about everything, but because people are so determined to be critical of the cultural trend you aren't listening to the data. There's 8 hours of data, questions, etc. That the FDA posted on youtube for the EUA of each vaccine. There's public data all over the CDC website covering all aspects of these vaccines, their efficacy and their safety in all sorts of circumstances. But you aren't actually seeking out that information. You refuse to trust that information. I personally find this a sober reminder of how different international actors, namely China and Russia are actively trying to erode trust in American institutions by pushing the hyper partisan media into information wars. And clearly they are succeeding. The real information is there you just aren't choosing to be receptive to it because of this "always mistrust ___" culture. What really highlights how bad it's gotten is that my hippy anti-vaxxer aunt and uncle couldn't wait to get the COVID vaccine and now, somehow, Donald Trump supporters are the vaccine hesitant... But it doesn't need to be political - **** Mitch McConnell is urging people to get vaccinated, Donald Trump got vaccinated, Desantis is urging people to get vaccinated. The data is there without the noise from hyper partisan voices.

1. The vaccine platform and concept began with the initial SARS outbreak in 2002. There was a lot of research done but ultimately no market, so it was shelved. The other aspect to consider is that notmally medicine takes a long time to develop because companies are on the hook for the financial liability of the trials. So it doesn't make sense for a company to run phase 2 and 3 trials simultaneously or push through as fast as they can. Their incitive is to mitigate risk because if it fails phase 2 they don't want to be $100MM deep in phase 3 trials. With the COVID vaccines the government absorbed the financial risk of failed trials. It's pretty obvious how this is mutually beneficial in a pandemic.

2. Lack of testing? Not sure what you mean as they went through 3 phases of trials just like any other medicine. Hundreds of millions of people globally have now had these vaccines at this point. I'm not sure what you are looking for.

3. Long term effects from these vaccines honstely don't make any sense if you understand the mechanism. As I've said before, it's well understood how these things work, your body fully processes everything in the vaccine within hours of vaccination. All that remains is your immune response. It's not like a complex compound your body might have difficulty processing, but that doesn't stop people from taking Tylenol. It doesn't change your DNA. There should be less concern of long term effects from the vaccine than being infected by Covid-19. I would recommend watching medcrams videos on youtube discussing the mRNA vaccines if you want to understand the mechanism in more detail.

4. The pressure comes from the fact that viruses are societal diseases. Everyone is exposed to your decision to get the vaccine or not. Immunocompromised people might get very ill or die as a result of the decsisions of the unvaccinated. If the vaccine is say 60% effective at preventing infection, every person that isn't vaccinated increases the chance that all of us get infected. This is not like eating yourself to 500 lbs (which is entirely a personal choice) because I can't catch your weight by being in your presence. As a society to function well we need to have control of this virus like every significant one before it. I wouldn't want my doctor treating a family member in the hospital without a Covid vaccine. Hoe would you feel if your mother went in for a knee replacement and caught covid from the nurse and became seriously ill. The last thing we need now that we have vaccines is for hospitals to drive infections. Which is probably why some healthcare facilities have required the vaccine.

5. My understanding is that all vaccines have indemnity clauses for "nondefective product". This is largely to keep vaccines affordable and accessible. Exposing yourself to liability of vaccines allows for unpredictable costs and their is no way for these companies to insure it. The challenge and vagueness of casuality creates real exposure for these companies even if the vaccine isn't actually at fault. For example I know someone who died of a stroke 2 months after the vaccine. But he was over 70 and had previous issues with strokes before COVID and had recently travelled on an airplane. Is it really a good idea to expose vaccine manufactures to lawsuits like that with an indrfinite timeline? What are the consequences of doing so to both accessibility and cost? I really don't think there's any way around this one ever. Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna are not scared about what their vaccine could do to you, they are scared of an infinite liability that doesn't even need to be well grounded to make a claim.

Good post.

I would add that a significant percentage of vaccine refusers are minorities as well.

CDC COVID Data Tracker

Per that page 9% of black people are vaccinated. I don't think 91% of black people are Trump fans but I could be wrong I guess.

Gordo14 said:

---

rafer69 said:

---

I agree with this.
How do we really know what to believe. I'm not anti-vaccine by any means. But I do have plenty of concerns mainly:
1- how quickly the vaccine was created
2- the lack of testing (other than what's going on now)
3- long term affects that are just simply unknown
4- the pressure for everyone to get vaccinated (maybe even becoming made mandatory)
5- the overarching indemnity granted to the pharm companies (has this been the case with previous vaccines?)

I want to know why anyone with a differing opinion than the main stream is considered a quack and why so many on this discussion board would go to such lengths to illustrate that rather than just have a real discussion on the concerns.
Tulsa insinuates that there are monetary or political motivations for these medical professionals who express concern with public health but fails to bring up the monetary or political motivations of the pharmaceutical companies, the CDC etc.
Then you hear people like Not Yet apply pressure saying "stop being a wimp get the vaccine" or usmc saying don't get the vaccine but don't come crying to us when your dying (paraphrasing) or bay fan saying "please stop your hurting other aggies"

Well it's not that simple for everyone and this is supposed to be a place where these things can be discussed.

---

This is the thing that frustrates me and a lot of people though. These companies and the government have been exceptionally transparent about everything, but because people are so determined to be critical of the cultural trend you aren't listening to the data. There's 8 hours of data, questions, etc. That the FDA posted on youtube for the EUA of each vaccine. There's public data all over the CDC website covering all aspects of these vaccines, their efficacy and their safety in all sorts of circumstances. But you aren't actually seeking out that information. You refuse to trust that information. I personally find this a sober reminder of how different international actors, namely China and Russia are actively trying to erode trust in American institutions by pushing the hyper partisan media into information wars. And clearly they are succeeding. The real information is there you just aren't choosing to be receptive to it because of this "always mistrust ___" culture. What really highlights how bad it's gotten is that my hippy anti-vaxxer aunt and uncle couldn't wait to get the COVID vaccine and now, somehow, Donald Trump supporters are the vaccine hesitant... But it doesn't need to be political - **** Mitch McConnell is urging people to get vaccinated, Donald Trump got vaccinated, Desantis is urging people to get vaccinated. The data is there without the noise from hyper partisan voices.

1. The vaccine platform and concept began with the initial SARS outbreak in 2002. There was a lot of research done but ultimately no market, so it was shelved. The other aspect to consider is that notmally medicine takes a long time to develop because companies are on the hook for the financial liability of the trials. So it doesn't make sense for a company to run phase 2 and 3 trials simultaneously or push through as fast as they can. Their incitive is to mitigate risk because if it fails phase 2 they don't want to be $100MM deep in phase 3 trials. With the COVID vaccines the government absorbed the financial risk of failed trials. It's pretty obvious how this is mutually beneficial in a pandemic.

2. Lack of testing? Not sure what you mean as they went through 3 phases of trials just like any other medicine. Hundreds of millions of people globally have now had these vaccines at this point. I'm not sure what you are looking for.

3. Long term effects from these vaccines honstely don't make any sense if you understand the mechanism. As I've said before, it's well understood how these things work, your body fully processes everything in the vaccine within hours of vaccination. All that remains is your immune response. It's not like a complex compound your body might have difficulty processing, but that doesn't stop people from taking Tylenol. It doesn't change your DNA. There should be less concern of long term effects from the vaccine than being infected by Covid-19. I would recommend watching medcrams videos on youtube discussing the mRNA vaccines if you want to understand the mechanism in more detail.

4. The pressure comes from the fact that viruses are societal diseases. Everyone is exposed to your decision to get the vaccine or not. Immunocompromised people might get very ill or die as a result of the decsisions of the unvaccinated. If the vaccine is say 60% effective at preventing infection, every person that isn't vaccinated increases the chance that all of us get infected. This is not like eating yourself to 500 lbs (which is entirely a personal choice) because I can't catch your weight by being in your presence. As a society to function well we need to have control of this virus like every significant one before it. I wouldn't want my doctor treating a family member in the hospital without a Covid vaccine. Hoe would you feel if your mother went in for a knee replacement and caught covid from the nurse and became seriously ill. The last thing we need now that we have vaccines is for hospitals to drive infections. Which is probably why some healthcare facilities have required the vaccine.

5. My understanding is that all vaccines have indemnity clauses for "nondefective product". This is largely to keep vaccines affordable and accessible. Exposing yourself to liability of vaccines allows for unpredictable costs and their is no way for these companies to insure it. The challenge and vagueness of casuality creates real exposure for these companies even if the vaccine isn't actually at fault. For example I know someone who died of a stroke 2 months after the vaccine. But he was over 70 and had previous issues with strokes before COVID and had recently travelled on an airplane. Is it really a good idea to expose vaccine manufactures to lawsuits like that with an indrfinite timeline? What are the consequences of doing so to both accessibility and cost? I really don't think there's any way around this one ever. Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna are not scared about what their vaccine could do to you, they are scared of an infinite liability that doesn't even need to be well grounded to make a claim.

---

Well done!