Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I'm not moving any goalposts. Get the vaccine if you need it. I had COVID already, and I haven't seen any reliable data on reinfections so I've made the assessment that I do not need it at this time.

I get my news from plenty of sources I deem to be reliable. Stop pretending everyone that has a problem with how the FDA has botched everything for the last 2 years is a conspiracy theorist. How many people have died because of their prioritization of vaccines over known-to-be-safe therapeutics? How many people have self-dosed with horse paste because of some irrational vendetta against the human formulation of ivermectin? How many people have died in the ICU without access to aviptadil, which has strong data showing it to be both safe and effective? Why have we waged war on hydroxychloroquine for a year and a half even though it is a safe drug? There are countless other examples. Even if these things are ineffective, the FDA's handling of these situations is a dereliction of duty and people should be held accountable.

People have died alone and uncared for in ICUs and instead of giving people all possible options, the FDA has waged war on safe drugs, dragged their feet on therapeutics, and prioritized vaccines that favor big pharma. Maybe you should get your news from reliable sources before you accuse others of being goalpost moving anti-vaxxers.

---

First, look at articles I have shared on this thread. I try my best to get real news and not opinions.

Second, you asked a lot of questions in that post. I'm not answering each one. The FDA isn't prefect but no one or no agency or no company is. There have been studies done that suggest getting a vaccine after being infected will greatly increase your chances of not getting seriously sick or dying.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/when-should-you-get-vaccinated-if-youve-had-covid-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289

Seersucker Ag 2011 said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Seersucker Ag 2011 said:

---

Does that mean people can sue if they have adverse reactions now?

---

Maybe it means more people will get it and stay out of the hospital. I now know several people who have died of Covid and none who have died or even suffered more then a day of flu like symptoms after being vaccinated. I think your perspective is skewed on this. No reason to be anything but pleased.

---

I got the vaccine and haven't had any adverse effects other than feeling crappy 12 hours after the shot, but I still worry that something will pop up months or years from now. I'm sure many are in the same boat since no one has had the vaccine for more than 8 months.

---

While I suppose you never know, we have a massive amount of data on the vaccine due to the huge numbers of people that have been vaccinated. And while we obviously can't have long term data yet, people seem to act like there's a lot more unknowns here than there are.

While mRNA treatments are new to consumers, they've been in development and studied for decades. When a "new" drug comes out it's rarely some brand new never seen thing, but a different combination of compounds that have existed and been studied for a long time.

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I'm not moving any goalposts. Get the vaccine if you need it. I had COVID already, and I haven't seen any reliable data on reinfections so I've made the assessment that I do not need it at this time.

I get my news from plenty of sources I deem to be reliable. Stop pretending everyone that has a problem with how the FDA has botched everything for the last 2 years is a conspiracy theorist. How many people have died because of their prioritization of vaccines over known-to-be-safe therapeutics? How many people have self-dosed with horse paste because of some irrational vendetta against the human formulation of ivermectin? How many people have died in the ICU without access to aviptadil, which has strong data showing it to be both safe and effective? Why have we waged war on hydroxychloroquine for a year and a half even though it is a safe drug? There are countless other examples. Even if these things are ineffective, the FDA's handling of these situations is a dereliction of duty and people should be held accountable.

People have died alone and uncared for in ICUs and instead of giving people all possible options, the FDA has waged war on safe drugs, dragged their feet on therapeutics, and prioritized vaccines that favor big pharma. Maybe you should get your news from reliable sources before you accuse others of being goalpost moving anti-vaxxers.

---

First, look at articles I have shared on this thread. I try my best to get real news and not opinions.

Second, you asked a lot of questions in that post. I'm not answering each one. The FDA isn't prefect but no one or no agency or no company is. There have been studies done that suggest getting a vaccine after being infected will greatly increase your chances of not getting seriously sick or dying.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/when-should-you-get-vaccinated-if-youve-had-covid-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289

---

Now who is the one moving the goalposts? Geez. Show me the data of reinfections killing people, especially young people. Those links prove absolutely nothing other than some people may get reinfected. They are likely to be older and immuno-compromised.

Even if I do get reinfected, it is likely to be a mild cold, same as the vaccine. It astonishes me how people sit here and claim that reinfection is a major risk while ignoring the fact that the vaccine literally functions to simulate infection in order to produce the immune response you would've gained through infection.

If reinfection is a major risk, then the vaccines are garbage. If you want to be spoon-fed garbage from the CDC, fine. But don't act holier than thou when people make a different assessment and actually seek real data.

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I'm not moving any goalposts. Get the vaccine if you need it. I had COVID already, and I haven't seen any reliable data on reinfections so I've made the assessment that I do not need it at this time.

I get my news from plenty of sources I deem to be reliable. Stop pretending everyone that has a problem with how the FDA has botched everything for the last 2 years is a conspiracy theorist. How many people have died because of their prioritization of vaccines over known-to-be-safe therapeutics? How many people have self-dosed with horse paste because of some irrational vendetta against the human formulation of ivermectin? How many people have died in the ICU without access to aviptadil, which has strong data showing it to be both safe and effective? Why have we waged war on hydroxychloroquine for a year and a half even though it is a safe drug? There are countless other examples. Even if these things are ineffective, the FDA's handling of these situations is a dereliction of duty and people should be held accountable.

People have died alone and uncared for in ICUs and instead of giving people all possible options, the FDA has waged war on safe drugs, dragged their feet on therapeutics, and prioritized vaccines that favor big pharma. Maybe you should get your news from reliable sources before you accuse others of being goalpost moving anti-vaxxers.

---

First, look at articles I have shared on this thread. I try my best to get real news and not opinions.

Second, you asked a lot of questions in that post. I'm not answering each one. The FDA isn't prefect but no one or no agency or no company is. There have been studies done that suggest getting a vaccine after being infected will greatly increase your chances of not getting seriously sick or dying.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/when-should-you-get-vaccinated-if-youve-had-covid-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289

---

Now who is the one moving the goalposts? Geez. Show me the data of reinfections killing people, especially young people. Those links prove absolutely nothing other than some people may get reinfected. They are likely to be older and immuno-compromised.

Even if I do get reinfected, it is likely to be a mild cold, same as the vaccine. It astonishes me how people sit here and claim that reinfection is a major risk while ignoring the fact that the vaccine literally functions to simulate infection in order to produce the immune response you would've gained through infection.

If reinfection is a major risk, then the vaccines are garbage. If you want to be spoon-fed garbage from the CDC, fine. But don't act holier than thou when people make a different assessment and actually seek real data.

---

The data suggests that getting vaccinated after being infected will decrease risk of serious illness and death. It also states that due to viral load fluctuating in infections we can't guarantee how long unvaccinated but previously infected people will hold antibodies at a level that will protect you.

Don't get vaxxed if you don't want but the info you are suggesting doesn't exist does exist.

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

t - cam said:

---

The goalpost was already moved when people started claiming the FDA was a joke or somehow untrustworthy.

---

The FDA is untrustworthy. See their lack of action on viable therapeutics that are known to be safe.

Their push for vaccines over all else is 100% political.

---

Moving the goalposts but please at least read what actual scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the vaccine. Get your news from real sources that are cited with scientific research.

---

I'm not moving any goalposts. Get the vaccine if you need it. I had COVID already, and I haven't seen any reliable data on reinfections so I've made the assessment that I do not need it at this time.

I get my news from plenty of sources I deem to be reliable. Stop pretending everyone that has a problem with how the FDA has botched everything for the last 2 years is a conspiracy theorist. How many people have died because of their prioritization of vaccines over known-to-be-safe therapeutics? How many people have self-dosed with horse paste because of some irrational vendetta against the human formulation of ivermectin? How many people have died in the ICU without access to aviptadil, which has strong data showing it to be both safe and effective? Why have we waged war on hydroxychloroquine for a year and a half even though it is a safe drug? There are countless other examples. Even if these things are ineffective, the FDA's handling of these situations is a dereliction of duty and people should be held accountable.

People have died alone and uncared for in ICUs and instead of giving people all possible options, the FDA has waged war on safe drugs, dragged their feet on therapeutics, and prioritized vaccines that favor big pharma. Maybe you should get your news from reliable sources before you accuse others of being goalpost moving anti-vaxxers.

---

First, look at articles I have shared on this thread. I try my best to get real news and not opinions.

Second, you asked a lot of questions in that post. I'm not answering each one. The FDA isn't prefect but no one or no agency or no company is. There have been studies done that suggest getting a vaccine after being infected will greatly increase your chances of not getting seriously sick or dying.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/when-should-you-get-vaccinated-if-youve-had-covid-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM63289&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20August%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM63289

---

Now who is the one moving the goalposts? Geez. Show me the data of reinfections killing people, especially young people. Those links prove absolutely nothing other than some people may get reinfected. They are likely to be older and immuno-compromised.

Even if I do get reinfected, it is likely to be a mild cold, same as the vaccine. It astonishes me how people sit here and claim that reinfection is a major risk while ignoring the fact that the vaccine literally functions to simulate infection in order to produce the immune response you would've gained through infection.

If reinfection is a major risk, then the vaccines are garbage. If you want to be spoon-fed garbage from the CDC, fine. But don't act holier than thou when people make a different assessment and actually seek real data.

---

The data suggests that getting vaccinated after being infected will decrease risk of serious illness and death. It also states that due to viral load fluctuating in infections we can't guarantee who long unvaccinated but previously infected people will hold antibodies at a level that will protect you.

Don't get vaxxed if you don't want but the info you are suggesting doesn't exist does exist.

---

It does exist, but it doesn't support what you're saying. The current data says you're 2 times more likely to get serious Covid through reinfection than vaccination. However, that's like saying you're 2 times more likely to get struck by lightning twice. Should I be worried about that too?

Stop peddling your fear porn and blindly following the "experts" that have been wrong time and time again.

You do you! I'm not throwing out "fear porn" just using data.

I'm not looking it up but getting struck by lightning twice is probably so unlikely it's statistically insignificant. The data on reinfections and breakthrough cases including those who get seriously ill are not statistically insignificant by any measure.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Anyone else that took J&J 1 shot thinking the same thing?

---

I got J&J in June and I now have transmissible Covid with symptoms that seem expected for my demographic with no vaccine. So, statistically, the shot didn't do **** for me. Based on the Breakthrough cases I see at work (various vaccines), I am concluding that we'll all get COVID. So get vaxxed if you're at risk and then go back to normal once the hospitals slow down a bit.

It's seems like we've now got some of the same people who have been yelling "hospital capacity isn't an issue!" are now turning around and complaining about the quality of care they are receiving in the hospital.

Quote:

---

Stop peddling your fear porn and blindly following the "experts" that have been wrong time and time again

---

He has repeatedly cited data, facts, and studies in this thread. Maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive.

You commenting the FDA is untrustworthy and pushing vaccines is 100% political isn't providing supporting data no matter how much you want it to be.

You may have plenty of valid points, but you don't actually supply any data - you just question the data others post and request further data to back it up.

I've been reinfected and it's basically a runny nose for 3 or 4 days. No chills, no fever, no body aches this time.

I find it funny how the pro-vaxxers point to scientists, virologists, epidimiologist, immunolgist...as if there are not any of those professionals against the vaccine completely, against the emergency use of the vaccines, or who aren't promoting various therapies such as monoclonal, HCQ, ivermectin ,etc. plenty of these very professionals are on the side of the skeptics.

I'm not hell bent on not getting vaxx, but I do believe it was wildly unethical how it was launched overpassing all safety protocols. Hopefully, 2 3 4 5 10 years from now the vaxx proves "safe", it certainly seems to be effective at reduction severe disease. But we will have to wait to find out.

What I feel is depressingly under studied is natural immunity. Many many man scientists feel natural immunity is as good or better than the current vaccines. Yet, the CDC literally has zero studies of natural immunity vs the vaccine. It's quite astonishing that any joe blo like myself can see this is a GIANT GAP in reporting but our government smells of big pharma interest on this one. It's the vaxxed vs. unvxaxxed...the "naturals" don't exist in the eyes of the CDC. shamefull.

why get the vaxx and accept UNKNOWN long term risks, when natural immunity should elicit a broader immune response? This is they question I would love to have answered. The risk benefit of this scenario.

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

So the US has 71% of people (>12 years old) with at least 1 dose, do we really think this will get many more to take it? Also, I thought the target was always 70% so aren't we there?

I think we're at a point of diminishing returns no matter what, politics aside

---

12 or older is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. I imagine that may be an outright lie.

I don't know a single person under 18 that is vaccinated.

---

Almost everyone I know with kids 12-18 have gotten their kids vaccinated. That is a broad spectrum of urban, rural, Texas and Michigan. Conservative, liberal and apathetic to politics.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/93940

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-vaccines-help-covid-infected-already-pandemic

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2782762

lead said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Anyone else that took J&J 1 shot thinking the same thing?

---

I got J&J in June and I now have transmissible Covid with symptoms that seem expected for my demographic with no vaccine. So, statistically, the shot didn't do **** for me. Based on the Breakthrough cases I see at work (various vaccines), I am concluding that we'll all get COVID. So get vaxxed if you're at risk and then go back to normal once the hospitals slow down a bit.

---

Neanderthals gonna Neanderthal. Thanks for your insight. I am fully prepared to get the sniffles and take a week off of work.

This is the conversation I had with my wife a few weekends ago. The kids are going to get it. The kids are going to give it to us. Period. No amount of standing 6 feet from a stranger or wearing a t-shirt material over your face-hole is going to help.

Just like any other respiratory virus. I took a vaccine that might likely help lessen the symptoms, but we are going to get it. Creating an unrealistic amount of fear is not helpful -- you cant outrun it. Listening to Dr. Rev et al about how to TREAT this or lessen symptoms (Quecertin, Vit C/D, Zinc, iver, remdesivir), is what is helpful.

The obsession that is going on with Covidians blaming people for testing positive for getting the virus, implying that they werent "careful enough" is not only completely bizarre, but damaging.

" I'm not hell bent on not getting vaxx, but I do believe it was wildly unethical how it was launched overpassing all safety protocols."

What are you talking about??? Each manufacturer had tens of thousands of people participate in the trial. Then their data was independently reviewed. That right there are safety protocols.

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

So the US has 71% of people (>12 years old) with at least 1 dose, do we really think this will get many more to take it? Also, I thought the target was always 70% so aren't we there?

I think we're at a point of diminishing returns no matter what, politics aside

---

12 or older is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. I imagine that may be an outright lie.

I don't know a single person under 18 that is vaccinated.

---

Almost everyone I know with kids 12-18 have gotten their kids vaccinated. That is a broad spectrum of urban, rural, Texas and Michigan. Conservative, liberal and apathetic to politics.

---

You & I must live in a different Texas then. I would concede I'm sure some kids in this age group have been vaccinated. 71% however seems like complete embellishment for that age bracket. Do you really believe 71% of Junior High aged youth are vaccinated across Texas?

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

How long were those trials relative to the standard bedrock safety protocols by the FDA?

---

If you actually want to know I'll post this again. I had similar questions about EUA and asked a 25+ year veteran of the pharmaceutical testing industry and we had a great discussion about it. The short answer to your question is that all typical early phase safety testing was done, just on an accelerated timeline due to the huge number of participants and massive collaboration to eliminate the whitespace that typically occurs between phases/approvals:

Full FDA approval requires long term studies in wide populations, including blind trials which the current timeline has not yet provided for. In the case of Covid vaccines full non-clinical work was done (i.e. is this safe for humans?) before undergoing Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials for safety and efficacy. Longer term animal studies and human trials are required for full approval.

Many drugs, particularly vaccines, have received Emergency Use Authorization before going on to full approval, and EUA is still very difficult to get and highly vetted by the FDA. Companies receiving EUA have to continue with their development and testing in parallel to release. It started back in the 80s with AIDS when people were dying while waiting on the full approval of drugs that already had large amounts of clinical evidence for helping their condition.

As with any drug there will be some risk, but in the case of a vaccine like this the benefits outweigh the risks by pretty much every measure.

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

So the US has 71% of people (>12 years old) with at least 1 dose, do we really think this will get many more to take it? Also, I thought the target was always 70% so aren't we there?

I think we're at a point of diminishing returns no matter what, politics aside

---

12 or older is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. I imagine that may be an outright lie.

I don't know a single person under 18 that is vaccinated.

---

Almost everyone I know with kids 12-18 have gotten their kids vaccinated. That is a broad spectrum of urban, rural, Texas and Michigan. Conservative, liberal and apathetic to politics.

---

You & I must live in a different Texas then. I would concede I'm sure some kids in this age group have been vaccinated. 71% however seems like complete embellishment for that age bracket. Do you really believe 71% of Junior High aged youth are vaccinated across Texas?

---

The original claim you responded to wasn't that 71% of 12 to 18 year olds have the vaccine, but that the 71% of the total population 12 and older have it.

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

So the US has 71% of people (>12 years old) with at least 1 dose, do we really think this will get many more to take it? Also, I thought the target was always 70% so aren't we there?

I think we're at a point of diminishing returns no matter what, politics aside

---

12 or older is HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. I imagine that may be an outright lie.

I don't know a single person under 18 that is vaccinated.

---

Per the CDC:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total

Kvetch said:

---

Ryota Hayami said:

---

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/93940

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-vaccines-help-covid-infected-already-pandemic

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2782762

---

Now tell me how many of the reinfections got severely ill and died. Then, compare that to the number of vaccinated people that have died. That's the only thing that matters.

You posting links to support things that I've already mentioned does nothing to disprove my point. Number of infections is irrelevant if number of deaths is low. I don't care if my immune response is stronger if the current immune response is good enough to keep me safe.

Get back to me with the data showing significant rates of death in reinfections, especially in those that aren't over 80.

---

I am sitting here providing data backing up myself. You can find and provide data to backup yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Motracicletraficificker said:

---

well if the % of vaxxed 12 to 18 year old's is nowhere near that 71% number (which it's not), then that statement is complete propaganda. absolutely zero reason to include junior high aged kids in that statistic, when we all now their% contribution to that statistic is EXTREMELY LOW. FDA isn't even recommending pfizer for under 16...case in point.

---

Sure there is a reason. That's the age cohort that was approved to take it under the EUA earlier this year. It was originally authorized for those over 18...then they added in 16+...then they added in 12+.

I guess you can question the process of such an authorization if you want but the fact that there are stats for % vaccinated of the population authorized to take it should not surprise anyone.