FlyRod said:

---

Quote:

---

Honest question: can I prevent spreading COVID to my family if I have the vaccine?

My understanding is that the vaccine will reduce my risk of hospitalization but if I am exposed, I can still contract.

If this is the case, why not only mandate PPE for public health instead of the vaccine.

---

Yes. BUT if vaccinated and boosted, your chances of catching it, and therefore spreading it, are significantly reduced.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

---

This should be flagged for being complete bull*****

amercer said:

---

The vaccines protects you from getting infected. If you aren't infected you can't spread it.

The protection against infection was 95% against the initial strain, 70% against delta, and maybe 40% against omicron. Boosters push those numbers up.

The good part is that if you do get infected you are protected against severe disease.

---

My mid-50s vaccinated aunt who spent a week in the ICU from COVID pneumonia in August would like to disagree with you on that.

Kick-R said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Kick-R said:

---

It is possible for the vaccine to be good and for mandates to be bad at the same time.. I cannot understand why people act like that isn't the case

---

How does this matter when those in power are creating mandates, trying to make everyone get this experimental vaccine? I will not get it, it is unproven and barely a year old. VAERS reports thousands have died after getting the vaccine. I know 2 people hospitalized from the vaccine. I don't want it.

If it's great and I'm wrong, let me live with the consequences. Don't threaten to take my job away and treat me like a leper because I choose not to inject this **** into my body.

---

So your response to my point about not being able to decouple vaccines from mandates.. is to rant about mandates and tie the vaccine to them. Guess I should have seen that one coming

---

Here are my thoughts...I believe the mandates have pushed many to never want to get the vaccine. Had the government just came out and stated that the vaccines are available for everyone, and on a specified date a month or so from then all restrictions would be gone and we'd return to normal, I believe many of the people who refuse to get one would have probably gotten it. Being forced to do something will have many refuse just because while asking questions about ulterior motives.

murphyag said:

---

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Thanks for the quick response

So if the vaccine does not stop the spread, why do some places and some companies mandate the vaccine? Just thinking logically here, not sure why I am required to get the vaccine to travel or go out in public. Maybe some states are preemptively requiring it due to hospital constraints. Maybe some companies have the same mindset

---

The vaccines lessen the likelihood of you getting sick enough to be hospitalized or to die. Hospitals filled up with Covid patients for weeks on end (look up average hospital stay with Covid- it is long) makes for a dangerous situation in them not having capacity to treat heart attacks, strokes, lost limbs, cancer patients, etc.

Companies are requiring vaccines because they don't want a large number of employees being out of the office sick with Covid and not working. Or dead and not working. All about the bottom line with companies. I also suspect health insurance companies have started or will soon start putting pressure in companies with large numbers of unvaccinated employees.

---

You sure it's not the potential OSHA fines?

CoachO_08 said:

---

It's not a vaccine.

It's a freaking therapeutic.

---

This isn't the politics board. Stop repeating this ignorant garbage here. Any educated person that calls this a therapeutic should have their degree revoked and placed back in middle school.

MaroonDontRun said:

---

amercer said:

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/unvaxxed-10-of-israelis-are-73-of-serious-cases-65-of-deaths-1.10251639

Same story in Israel.

---

So 35% of those that were vaxxed died in Israel. It sort of reinforces my point.

---

That's not what that story said at all. Did you even read it or are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

aggierogue said:

---

cc_ag92 said:

---

We don't do anecdotes on this board, do we?

If we're doing anecdotes, I know three people in their 40s-early 50s who were in good health who died from Covid in the last year even though I've been told that people in that age range aren't at risk unless they are gordos. I know another who was hospitalized and on ECMO who did survive after three months in the hospital, but he does get to celebrate Christmas this year. Three of the four took Ivermectin. The fourth took HCQ. I've been told that those are medical miracle cures that are being hidden from us so I'm not sure what happened.

I know four people who currently have Covid. Two were vaccinated, not boosted.Two were unvaccinated.

I'm not actually sure that any of that means anything, but since we're sharing anecdotes as if they mean something, I thought I'd contribute.

---

So you would agree that your anecdotal evidence doesn't support 95 and 70 percent protection for vaccinated? Not sure what the rest of your your story regarding people you know who died means, but it doesn't have anything to do with my response.

---

This is the most recent study on Omicron and vaccinations. They really aren't effective against Omicron and actually have a negative impact after 100 days.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v1.full

Not peer reviewed, and thus misinformation, or at best, useless.

NicosMachine said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

cc_ag92 said:

---

We don't do anecdotes on this board, do we?

If we're doing anecdotes, I know three people in their 40s-early 50s who were in good health who died from Covid in the last year even though I've been told that people in that age range aren't at risk unless they are gordos. I know another who was hospitalized and on ECMO who did survive after three months in the hospital, but he does get to celebrate Christmas this year. Three of the four took Ivermectin. The fourth took HCQ. I've been told that those are medical miracle cures that are being hidden from us so I'm not sure what happened.

I know four people who currently have Covid. Two were vaccinated, not boosted.Two were unvaccinated.

I'm not actually sure that any of that means anything, but since we're sharing anecdotes as if they mean something, I thought I'd contribute.

---

So you would agree that your anecdotal evidence doesn't support 95 and 70 percent protection for vaccinated? Not sure what the rest of your your story regarding people you know who died means, but it doesn't have anything to do with my response.

---

This is the most recent study on Omicron and vaccinations. They really aren't effective against Omicron and actually have a negative impact after 100 days.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v1.full

---

I mean the paper states that efficacy is underestimated due to behavioral differences, i.e. vaccinated people taking fewer precautions against getting sick.

It's clear the vaccines do not work very well in preventing transmission. They help prevent severe disease. This is why we need to do away with all of these draconian mitigation measures. Nothing is going to stop the spread. Get vaccinated and you'll reduce your risk of going to the hospital and/or the morgue. There are several people who will refuse to get the jab. If they want to take the risk, well, it's on them.

Holy moly.

This study shows that after three months the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer & Moderna against Omicron is actually negative. Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people. https://t.co/wPgAwG8BW3 pic.twitter.com/3Oh3IJSVIk

— Ezra Levant 🍁 (@ezralevant) December 23, 2021

Did you read the study?

Upper 95% CI on was -60% and -20%, respectively. That means vaccine made infection worse in this dataset. The result is nonsense.

This is the part where you're supposed to think about what you measured and question whether there's something wrong with how you collected or analyzed the data. Instead, they assume what they did was right and made up bull**** about why the one result is off but apparently still want to act like the other comparisons meant something.

It seems they thoughtlessly mined a raw database without controlling for anything in terms of population, then tried to get a quick publication out of it. Garbage in garbage out. Crap paper is crap. The authors should feel bad for putting this **** out there.