Pro-vax and Anti-vax Totalitarianism

[JonC]

Here is an example of what Revmitchell believes is a myth:

Front-line health workers in Georgia have been confronted and harassed by anti-vaccination activists who are hindering efforts to immunize people against coronavirus, according to the state’s health chief.

Dr. Kathleen Toomey said at a news conference Monday with Gov. Brian Kemp that a mobile clinic in north Georgia had to be shut down because an organized group targeted it.


The anti-vaxers were not being forced to take a shot. They wanted to make sure people who wanted to be vaccinated could not.

 

[carpro]

Told? No. I didn't ask. I looked it up before making a decision.

Based on clinical trials, in people aged 18 years and older, the Moderna vaccine (the vaccine I took) was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of previously being infected with the virus. The actual numbers are provided from the trials.

The lie anti-vaxers tell is that the vaccine claims to be 94.1% effective - leaving out the part where this was in clinical trials.

What I read was the trials and results, including the side-effects.

Clinical trials, as far as I know, were all they had to go on. If you had something else to go on, put it here for all to see along with what effective rate you based your decision on.

What does your research tell you the effective rate is now?

 

[JonC]

Clinical trials, as far as I know, were all they had to go on. If you had something else to go on, put it here for all to see along with what effective rate you based your decision on.

What does your research tell you the effective rate is now?

Initially, yes. That is where the 95% came from. Later studies (not clinical trials) resulted in 85% effectiveness and over 95% in preventing serious disease. The source is posted somewhere.....either this thread or a recent thread about this issue.

 

[SGO]

Just the facts and factual interpretation, % % % % .
I's so sense sore.

 

[carpro]

Initially, yes. That is where the 95% came from. Later studies (not clinical trials) resulted in 85% effectiveness and over 95% in preventing serious disease. The source is posted somewhere.....either this thread or a recent thread about this issue.

Based on information at the time, we were sold a bill of goods.

After phase 3 trial:
"The Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 after the second dose"

That clearly turned out to be grossly inaccurate and that's the figure most people based their decision on. Except you, of course.

After phase 3 trial
Feb 27 Johnson and Johnson only.

"This decision was based on the totality of scientific evidence, including data from the Phase 3 ENSEMBLE study that demonstrated the vaccine was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, and showed protection against COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, beginning 28 days after vaccination."

Much closer to the truth, but millions of people had already received their first shot of either Moderna or Pfizer, including me. No other choice was offered.
I just have to come out and admit it. I'm just not as well informed as you obviously were.

BTW When did you get you first or only shot?

 

[JonC]

Based on information at the time, we were sold a bill of goods.

After phase 3 trial:
"The Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 after the second dose"

That clearly turned out to be grossly inaccurate and that's the figure most people based their decision on. Except you, of course.

After phase 3 trial
Feb 27 Johnson and Johnson only.

"This decision was based on the totality of scientific evidence, including data from the Phase 3 ENSEMBLE study that demonstrated the vaccine was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, and showed protection against COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, beginning 28 days after vaccination."

Much closer to the truth, but millions of people had already received their first shot of either Moderna or Pfizer, including me. No other choice was offered.
I just have to come out and admit it. I'm just not as well informed as you obviously were.

BTW When did you get you first or only shot?

The information was correct.

"The median length of follow up for efficacy for participants in the study was 9 weeks post Dose 2. There were 11 COVID-19 cases in the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%). "

The problem is people took that to mean "once a population is vaccinated the results will be identical to the trial".

People just did not understand the efficacy was what had already happened - the data collected and documented during the trials - and took it as foretelling what would happen.

Anytime you look at clinical trials you have to keep in mind data points are based on the actual clinical trial and while useful as a prediction do not tell what will actually occur.


The later studies placed the efficacy lower (85%) but very high at preventing serious disease.

I took the Moderna vaccine, 1st shot 24 March and 2nd shot 21 April.

 

[carpro]

People just did not understand the efficacy was what had already happened - the data collected and documented during the trials - and took it as foretelling what would happen.

.

Well, nobody but you.

"In August, the CDC also published studies that showed mRNA vaccine protection against infection may be waning, although the vaccines were still highly effective against hospitalization. In one CDC study, data from the state of New York showed vaccine effectiveness dropping from 91.7 to 79.8% against infection"

And dropping daily.

 

[JonC]

Well, nobody but you.

"In August, the CDC also published studies that showed mRNA vaccine protection against infection may be waning, although the vaccines were still highly effective against hospitalization. In one CDC study, data from the state of New York showed vaccine effectiveness dropping from 91.7 to 79.8% against infection"

And dropping daily.

I don't know why only me....the data was on the sheets (what I quoted).

And yes, the last study I read was antibodies dropped with time (estimated around 75% after 6 to 8 months....slightly behind antibodies resulting from covid infection). I suspect booster shots will be avaliable soon.

The plus is it looks when antibodies are non-detectable t cells will still provide a defence (for the vaccinated, but not the unvacvinated covid survivers as covid diminishes t cells)...but studies also predict t cells from current vaccines will not be as effective for varients.

 

[carpro]

I don't know why only me....the data was on the sheets (what I quoted).

.

The only data on the street when millions of people received their first Moderna shot was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 after the second dose"

It's not turning out to be even really very close.In some places 80% of the people coming down with the virus are vaccinated, Most with Moderna or Pfizerr. It's all a really sick joke.

I'm done with this circular discussion. I concede that you are a far superior investigator than anyone else I know. Either that or you are clairvoyant. Everyone that received their 1st shot before Feb. 27. would have had to have been clairvoyant to know that there was going to be a different vaccine with different rate and changing from contracting the virus at all to, well, you still might get sick but it won't be as bad.

But , of course, you knew.

 

[JonC]

The only data on the street when millions of people received their first Moderna shot was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 after the second dose"

It's not turning out to be even really very close.In some places 80% of the people coming down with the virus are vaccinated, Most with Moderna or Pfizerr. It's all a really sick joke.

I'm done with this circular discussion. I concede that you are a far superior investigator than anyone else I know. Either that or you are clairvoyant. Everyone that received their 1st shot before Feb. 27. would have had to have been clairvoyant to know that there was going to be a different vaccine with different rate and changing from contracting the virus at all to, well, you still might get sick but it won't be as bad.

But , of course, you knew.

I don't know about data on the streets. I do not watch the news (all I get is conversations here).

The reason I knew the data was from clinical trials and not a prophesy of what would come is because I am not as smart as you guys. I only read the data - not people's conclusions.


What I did was to read the fact sheet on Moderna before I was vaccinated. It said the vaccine had a 94.1% efficacy rate in the trials and broke down the side-effects by how many experienced those things in the trials.

I was satisfied with the clinical trials and thought "what the heck.....I'll give it a go).

 

[SGO]

"Disclaimer: Positions I argue may not be my own."
post #110

 

[JonC]

"Disclaimer: Positions I argue may not be my own."
post #110

That is a very good idea....I agree with your method (as long as you are also willing to identify what IS your own argument as well.

We should always argue positions in such a way as to help the opposing view develop their own arguments.

Too many look at arguments as a contest rather than arriving at the truth (or at least at tge best possible opposing views).

Given your comment I take it you graduated college. That is one of the best benefits of an education - critical thinking skills.

In regards to post# 10 - no. I do not watch White House briefings. They are usually just political pestering (not a typeo ).

 

[Salty]

in short - I like to hear all three sides (+sometimes 4 sides)
(And I think once there was a Pentagon)

 

[JonC]

in short - I like to hear all three sides (+sometimes 4 sides)
(And I think once there was a Pentagon)

I don't trust any of the sides.....including the fifth one .

 

[SGO]

"Disclaimer: Positions I argue may not be my own."
post #110

Original has been deleted from post 110.

 

[SGO]

Let me argue another side which I may not believe in order to make you smarter.

Dis claimer is dat claimer, a position which may not be my own.

Disclammer: I do not have to identify my true clammer position. What would be the fun in that?

Exclaim nation: I do not have the even moderate power to delete items from my posts at later dates.

 

[JonC]

Original has been deleted from post 110.

I don't get your point.

Here is the original version:
____________________________________________________

The only data on the street when millions of people received their first Moderna shot was 94.1% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 after the second dose"

It's not turning out to be even really very close.In some places 80% of the people coming down with the virus are vaccinated, Most with Moderna or Pfizerr. It's all a really sick joke.

I'm done with this circular discussion. I concede that you are a far superior investigator than anyone else I know. Either that or you are clairvoyant. Everyone that received their 1st shot before Feb. 27. would have had to have been clairvoyant to know that there was going to be a different vaccine with different rate and changing from contracting the virus at all to, well, you still might get sick but it won't be as bad.

But , of course, you knew.

I don't know about data on the streets. I do not watch the news (all I get is conversations here).

The reason I knew the data was from clinical trials and not a prophesy of what would come is because I am not as smart as you guys. I only read the data - not people's conclusions.


What I did was to read the fact sheet on Moderna before I was vaccinated. It said the vaccine had a 94.1% efficacy rate in the trials and broke down the side-effects by how many experienced those things in the trials.

I was satisfied with the clinical trials and thought "what the heck.....I'll give it a go).

______________________________________________________

 

[JonC]

Let me argue another side which I may not believe in order to make you smarter.

Dis claimer is dat claimer, a position which may not be my own.

Disclammer: I do not have to identify my true clammer position. What would be the fun in that?

Exclaim nation: I do not have the even moderate power to delete items from my posts at later dates.

Uh....I don't really care about what you believe. I can only know what you post.

I do not know where you are going with this.

I agree there is an advantage in arguing opposing positions. Not only does it help you strengthen your view but it also helps you to understand the opposing position (it can help talking past one another).

So I have no problem with you arguing views that are not yours. I deal with whatever argument is posted.

I am just saying it is also good to make your own position known.

 

[rlvaughn]

Original has been deleted from post 110.

I don't get your point.

Here is the original version...

Jon, Post 110 is your post, not carpro's.

 

[rlvaughn]

I am not opposed to state governments requiring a vaccine for certain businesses.

I am sure you feel you have a consistent position regarding state (or federal, if you so believe) governments, but it does not come across that way to me. It seems like "the government should stay out of the policies of private businesses, except when I think they shouldn't."

Now, to be fair, all things are not always as clear-cut as we would like them to be. For example, is our school district a local entity or a state entity? Yes! However, I approach what I understand as a privately owned business in this way, that the government should stay out of their policies and let the policies be "set" by the free enterprise decisions of their customers. As an illustration, think of smoking. Several years ago the swung against smoking and it became popular for cities to adopt no-smoking ordinances. I don't smoke, don't want anyone to blow their smoke in my face, and think it is a nasty & unhealthy habit. So the no-smoking ordinance is (theoretically) in line with my view of smoking. But the city's telling private businesses that people cannot smoke in their establishments is not in line with my view of free enterprise. If the city wants to establish that policy in the buildings they own and control, let them. If I don't want to patronize a restaurant, hotel, or other businesses because they are full of cigarette smoke, I can make that decision without the city's interference, and perhaps there are some other people like being in smoke-filled buildings.