4th jab now recommended

[KenH]

The same "science establishment" you believe about Covid?

Different issues. I am not in lockstep about COVID, either. If I had a child under 12 years of age, at the moment I would be rather hesitant about giving the vaccine to him. I would have to research it and discuss with my doctor if I was in that situation. I am glad I am not.

 

[Reynolds]

Different issues. I am not in lockstep about COVID, either. If I had a child under 12 years of age, at the moment I would be rather hesitant about giving the vaccine to him. I would have to research it and discuss with my doctor if I was in that situation. I am glad I am not.

I agree about the child under 12. If they telling lies about safety for under 12, you trust the same people to tell the truth about safety over 12?

 

[KenH]

I agree about the child under 12. If they telling lies about safety for under 12, you trust the same people to tell the truth about safety over 12?

I trust my doctor. He knows a WHOLE lot more about medical issues than I do.

 

[Revmitchell]

I trust my doctor. He knows a WHOLE lot more about medical issues than I do.

I do to. My doc and nurse at the va said that because I’ve had covid not to worry about the shot

 

[KenH]

I agree about the child under 12. If they telling lies about safety for under 12, you trust the same people to tell the truth about safety over 12?

It's not about trust as far as I am concerned. My concern is about the age as it would be for any vaccine for a young child. My cousin-in-law's granddaughter just got a bunch of vaccinations at 10 months old the other day and she didn't feel good for about a day or two. Not having had any children, I am not familiar with these issues with young children. Thus, the reason I would have to learn more from my doctor about having a young child vaccinated for COVID-19.

 

[JonC]

I think you use statistics exactly how you are now claiming others use statistics.

I have no problem with adults making decisions for themselves and their families based on the info they have, whether they get the vac or not.

Im not going to compare them to children or accuse them of not caring if they kill people, which you have done to your shame.

Statistics have been used from the beginning to grossly exaggerate the risk of this virus, especially to younger people.

I saw a poll that the majority of dems believe people have a 40% chance of being hospitalized if exposed to this virus. The real number, for most people is lie single digits.

That is a direct result of hyperbolic coverage in the news and misinformation being spread.

I don’t think you and I are very far apart on the effectiveness of the vaccines and their benefit, especially for the elderly and those with preexisting conditions.

I am horrified by the way those that disagree are being characterized, marginalized, and unfairly treated. It is straight out of a tyrants playbook.

peace to you

When arguing statistics I do, I'll agree with you on that.

Statistically it is foolish to decline a covid vaccinations (just looking at the numbers).

But statistics doesn't tell all. What if you had a history of adverse reactions to vaccines? What if your parents did? What if you had a relative die of anaphylaxis after a vacvine? What if a friend or relative died of covid? What if you were raised to distrust scientists? What if you are 20 and healthy? What if you are 50?

Statistics will tell us a man who dies on a cross does not rise again on the third day.

I don't mind arguing statistics because the anti-covid-vaxers lose that one all day long.

But often the truth is on the ground and not one size fits all.

 

[Reynolds]

When arguing statistics I do, I'll agree with you on that.

Statistically it is foolish to decline a covid vaccinations (just looking at the numbers).

But statistics doesn't tell all. What if you had a history of adverse reactions to vaccines? What if your parents did? What if you had a relative die of anaphylaxis after a vacvine? What if a friend or relative died of covid? What if you were raised to distrust scientists? What if you are 20 and healthy? What if you are 50?

Statistics will tell us a man who dies on a cross does not rise again on the third day.

I don't mind arguing statistics because the anti-covid-vaxers lose that one all day long.

But often the truth is on the ground and not one size fits all.

So, how does employer requiring all employees be vaccinated not fall into "one size fits all"?

 

[Reynolds]

It's not about trust as far as I am concerned. My concern is about the age as it would be for any vaccine for a young child. My cousin-in-law's granddaughter just got a bunch of vaccinations at 10 months old the other day and she didn't feel good for about a day or two. Not having had any children, I am not familiar with these issues with young children. Thus, the reason I would have to learn more from my doctor about having a young child vaccinated for COVID-19.

The scientists say it's safe at 5. Why you not believe them about age? Honestly confusing.

 

[KenH]

Why you not believe them about age? Honestly confusing.

It's not a matter of believing. I have not researched or had any conversation with my doctor about young people. Just like it was not a matter of believing when I got vaccinated. It was going through a process so that I was convinced it was okay to be vaccinated, even though the second Moderna shot packed a wallop.

 

[JonC]

It's not a matter of believing. I have not researched or had any conversation with my doctor about young people. Just like it was not a matter of believing when I got vaccinated. It was going through a process so that I was convinced it was okay to be vaccinated, even though the second Moderna shot packed a wallop.

I do know the dose is less for kids.

 

[Reformed1689]

This means tge unvaccinated put those around them at an unnecessary risk

Vaccine must not be that effective for this to be a concern.

 

[Two Wings]

Boosters are therefore recommended.

jon, In Pfizer's application for the EUA last year, the 3rd or 4th "advantage" to this brand new vax technology ... behind the ability to produce billions in weeks (exaggerated, but the point is produce enough to jab folks much faster than growing the virus to modify to put in an antigen solution for injection)

.... NO BOOSTERS.

hello. Were they lying ... or was this one of the first things they claimed which was simply wrong.

I wrote this paper after researching this thing; online sources, immunologists, veterinarians ...

the concern I list of duration of spike protein production has been addressed, but not really answered ... unless we can deduce the need to continue production is revealed in the claimed need for a booter, which they said wasn't necessary.

 

[JonC]

jon, In Pfizer's application for the EUA last year, the 3rd or 4th "advantage" to this brand new vax technology ... behind the ability to produce billions in weeks (exaggerated, but the point is produce enough to jab folks much faster than growing the virus to modify to put in an antigen solution for injection)

.... NO BOOSTERS.

hello. Were they lying ... or was this one of the first things they claimed which was simply wrong.

I wrote this paper after researching this thing; online sources, immunologists, veterinarians ...

the concern I list of duration of spike protein production has been addressed, but not really answered ... unless we can deduce the need to continue production is revealed in the claimed need for a booter, which they said wasn't necessary.

I would not go out on a limb by saying anybody was lying when covid first hit or they first started with vaccinations. That would be making assumptions.

I did not see in the paperwork where Pfizer claimed no boosters would be needed. Thus seems inconsistent with having to use 2 shots to achieve functional immunity.

Please attach the Pfizer document (or a link). Thanks.

And yes, rapid development is an advantage of mRNA vaccines. This was established early on (in 2010, I think) by ModeRNA Tech.

 

[Reynolds]

jon, In Pfizer's application for the EUA last year, the 3rd or 4th "advantage" to this brand new vax technology ... behind the ability to produce billions in weeks (exaggerated, but the point is produce enough to jab folks much faster than growing the virus to modify to put in an antigen solution for injection)

.... NO BOOSTERS.

hello. Were they lying ... or was this one of the first things they claimed which was simply wrong.

I wrote this paper after researching this thing; online sources, immunologists, veterinarians ...

the concern I list of duration of spike protein production has been addressed, but not really answered ... unless we can deduce the need to continue production is revealed in the claimed need for a booter, which they said wasn't necessary.

We know they lie.

 

[Two Wings]

2 shots to achieve functional immunity.

the series isn't the problem. The need for the booster inside 12 months is the problem.

I'll review my research, but it was in the Pfizer filing. If you locate it first, I'll congratulate you. Thanks.

 

[Two Wings]

Thus seems inconsistent with having to use 2 shots to achieve functional immunity.

the link I had has been outdated (I should have saved that page as a pdf) ... but the information is included in this page on nih regarding the description of the vaccine type.

Self-replicating mRNA constructs (replicons) encode an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP) complex required for self-amplification as well as the components found in nonreplicating constructs (Figure 1B) [19,20]. The RDRP complex is often derived from alphaviruses, e.g., Sindbis virus [19,20]. Self-replication increases the magnitude and duration of construct expression and, consequently, production of the encoded immunogen. In non-human primates (NHP), low doses of self-replicating mRNA vaccine induced enhanced immunogen production for an extended duration, where production peaked on day 3 and remained detectable for more than 14 days following immunization [20]. Similarly, immunization with a self-replicating mRNA construct induced more protein synthesis for a longer period of time and a greater immune response in mice, compared with a nonreplicating mRNA vaccine [21]. An additional advantage of self-replicating mRNA constructs is the ability to incorporate multiple gene sequences into the same replicon, allowing the expression of both the target immunogen and immunomodulatory molecules such as CD40L, CD70, OX40L, and GM-CSF to enhance potency [22,23].
​

this means ... no boosters ... in layman's terms.

mRNA-Based Vaccines

 

[JonC]

the series isn't the problem. The need for the booster inside 12 months is the problem.

I'll review my research, but it was in the Pfizer filing. If you locate it first, I'll congratulate you. Thanks.

That part is debatable. The US still says no need for the booster within 12 months except in specific populations. Israel says the vaccine remains effective but could be more effective with a booster. And Israel has pretty much bottomed out for new covid cases. They spiked but fell quickly.

So your assessment may need tweaking.

 

[Two Wings]

That part is debatable. The US still says no need for the booster within 12 months except in specific populations. Israel says the vaccine remains effective but could be more effective with a booster.

So your assessment may need tweaking.

do you really believe there will be no recommendation for all to have a cv jab every 6-8 months? (NLT once/year)

when NO boosters were heralded as a significant advantage ... merely different mRNA vaccines for different pathogens.

this isn't what we've seen and will almost assuredly see in the near future.

 

[Reynolds]

That part is debatable. The US still says no need for the booster within 12 months except in specific populations. Israel says the vaccine remains effective but could be more effective with a booster. And Israel has pretty much bottomed out for new covid cases. They spiked but fell quickly.

So your assessment may need tweaking.

Israel. They are definitely not the example to follow if you want to eliminate Covid.

 

[JonC]

do you really believe there will be no recommendation for all to have a cv jab every 6-8 months? (NLT once/year)

when NO boosters were heralded as a significant advantage ... merely different mRNA vaccines for different pathogens.

this isn't what we've seen and will almost assuredly see in the near future.

Given the Israeli study that showed the vaccines effective but reduced from 50% to 75% effectiveness (depending on vaccine) after 8 months, with booster shots bringing the effectiveness to over 95% against the sars-cov-2 virus I fully expect boosters to be recommended to the general public and increased boosters to the more vulnerable.