This shot and my view:

[FollowTheWay]

Well, not really. The Cleveland Clinic just published a study that showed people who have had the virus get no additional immunity from taking the vaccine.

I’ve had the virus. Since I would get no benefit from the vaccine, even a small chance of complications seems an unnecessary risk.

peace to you

COVID-19 Vaccine FAQs | Cleveland Clinic
If I've had COVID-19 should I get vaccinated anyway?

We still recommend that you get the vaccine even if you’ve had COVID-19. However, you may consider waiting 90 days after getting infected as it’s not common to get COVID-19 again within three months of first being infected.

Read More

 

[FollowTheWay]

The vaccines caused many cases of polio in Africa. Where you think the non "wild" cases came from?

What completely eradicated polio at one point in Africa?

"Last year, on 25 August 2020, Africa made history with the African Region Certification Commission for Polio Eradication independently certifying that the Region was free of wild poliovirus. This is the second disease to be kicked out of Africa after smallpox more than 40 years ago.

This achievement is remarkable, considering that in the 1990s wild poliovirus paralysed more than 75,000 African children every single year – a situation that prompted Nelson Mandela in 1996, joined by Rotary International and other partners, to issue a stark call to action: Kick Polio Out of Africa!

All strains of wild poliovirus have now been interrupted in the continent. The last case of wild poliovirus was in August 2016"

Yes there are new challenges but they will be confronted by SCIENCE not voodoo. Without polio and smallpox vaccines both of those epidemics would still be ravaging Africa.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You really don't want to compare the polio vaccine with that of this covid one - the history of the polio vaccine is actually scary:

Polio vaccine - Wikipedia

*some* posters may not read through that, so I'll pull:



and Salk worked on the vaccine for over seven years, as opposed to the covid, which was rushed through. I think the covid one is safe for most people but no just because big smart government says so - look what this same bunch did with the food pyramid, which arguably has led to global obesity. Wouldn't give it to my kids even now.

We definitely should follow the scientific experts, the CDC, NIH, Mayo Clinic, The Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, etc. Following government (Trump) cost us dearly due to an irrational and late response.

 

[JonC]

We definitely should follow the scientific experts, the CDC, NIH, Mayo Clinic, The Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, etc. Following government (Trump) cost us dearly due to an irrational and late response.

I agree on the first part, but not on the second. When it comes to the vaccine we have to give credit where credit is due. The Democrats were anti-vacvine, calling it the "Trump vaccine" complaining it was rushed

Now, as far as reactions to COVID goes, Trump restricted some travel (and was criticized for overreaction) but kinda slowed his reaction when the Democrats recognized the virus as being serious.

It all became political. Trump pushed a vacvine, accurately predicting we would have one by the end of 2020 even though Democrats said that was stupid - but drew back on other measures because Democrats were pushing them (and Democrats were anti-virus because Trump was pushing it).

We owe the vaccines to the Trump administration at least that we got them quickly). Biden did a better job at getting them out.

 

[canadyjd]

COVID-19 Vaccine FAQs | Cleveland Clinic
If I've had COVID-19 should I get vaccinated anyway?

We still recommend that you get the vaccine even if you’ve had COVID-19. However, you may consider waiting 90 days after getting infected as it’s not common to get COVID-19 again within three months of first being infected.

Read More

Which just goes against the science.

On the one hand, the science shows there is no benefit to getting the vaccine for those who have had the virus and recovered.

On the other hand, we still recommend you get the vaccine based on ……. Something other than science…..

The recommendation must be based on politics, since it is not based on science.

If they acknowledge 100 million Americans have had the virus and would not benefit from the vaccine, all the hype about masks, shutdowns, control of people’s lives will fall apart because that would mean we already have “herd immunity” and threat of this virus is essentially over.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

…However, you may consider waiting 90 days after getting infected as it’s not common to get COVID-19 again within three months of first being infected.

Read More

This statement is misleading, similar to the statement by the CDC that a person who had the virus has less than 10% chance of being re-infected.

The actual chance of re-infection is less than .05%. That is less than 1/2 of 1%. Although .05% is less than 10%, it is so much less than 10%, it makes that statement misleading.

For Cleveland clinic to say It is unlikely to be re-infected within 90 days is misleading because a person may assume the chances increase after 90 days.

The science says it is far more unlikely to get infected having natural immunity (.05%) than being infected after the vaccine (5%).

The deception is clear, even if the reason for the deception is less clear.

peace to you

 

[FollowTheWay]

Which just goes against the science.

On the one hand, the science shows there is no benefit to getting the vaccine for those who have had the virus and recovered.

On the other hand, we still recommend you get the vaccine based on ……. Something other than science…..

The recommendation must be based on politics, since it is not based on science.

If they acknowledge 100 million Americans have had the virus and would not benefit from the vaccine, all the hype about masks, shutdowns, control of people’s lives will fall apart because that would mean we already have “herd immunity” and threat of this virus is essentially over.

peace to you

Who do you call "the science?" This is from the Cleveland Clinic.

 

[JonC]

Which just goes against the science.

On the one hand, the science shows there is no benefit to getting the vaccine for those who have had the virus and recovered.

On the other hand, we still recommend you get the vaccine based on ……. Something other than science…..

The recommendation must be based on politics, since it is not based on science.

If they acknowledge 100 million Americans have had the virus and would not benefit from the vaccine, all the hype about masks, shutdowns, control of people’s lives will fall apart because that would mean we already have “herd immunity” and threat of this virus is essentially over.

peace to you

Not "against the science", but perhaps against the data (more precisely, an interpretation of the data).

 

[atpollard]

None of the govt or anyone else's business what my medical history is.

True, but a business should have the right to request that those not vaccinated wear a mask or to adopt a policy that everyone entering the building must wear a mask. You have the right to refuse to enter if you disagree and some restaurants require a jacket and tie. Nobody screams "I have a right to dine naked if I want!"

 

[atpollard]

Thanks, but I'll leave it. I just confused myself thinking about one thing and posting about another. My general principle is that a store (private business) can set its own boundaries and the customer can as well. If we do not like the store's rules, we go to another.

That's what I voted too.
Then I thought ... can a business fire any employee that refuses to get a shot? Or fire any employee that gets a shot?
Suddenly businesses making their own rules may not be fair either.

 

[canadyjd]

Who do you call "the science?" This is from the Cleveland Clinic.

Both statements are from the Cleveland clinic, which is my point.

The one statement from the CC, states those who have had the virus get no additional benefit from taking the vaccine.

The next statement says, go ahead and take the vaccine anyway.

It makes no sense, scientifically or medically, to take a vaccine that doesn’t benefit you at all, but exposes you to a small risk of complications.

The only reason to say, “go ahead and take the vaccine anyway”, is because of politics, not science.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Not "against the science", but perhaps against the data (more precisely, an interpretation of the data).

The “data” is based on the scientific observations of the professionals.

This scientific data says those who have had the virus and recovered get no additional benefit from taking the vaccine. They are exposed, however, to a small chance of serious complications.

The recommendation to take the vaccine anyway is not based on any scientific data observed by professionals. It’s not based on common sense.

There can be no rational explanation for scientific experts to recommend taking a vaccine that will give you no additional benefits.

The only explanation is the recommendation is not based on scientific data, but on politics.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

The “data” is based on the scientific observations of the professionals.

This scientific data says those who have had the virus and recovered get no additional benefit from taking the vaccine. They are exposed, however, to a small chance of serious complications.

The recommendation to take the vaccine anyway is not based on any scientific data observed by professionals. It’s not based on common sense.

There can be no rational explanation for scientific experts to recommend taking a vaccine that will give you no additional benefits.

The only explanation is the recommendation is not based on scientific data, but on politics.

peace to you

No. The data is data. The data is collected, however it is not based on scientific observation.

For example, I have observed a HVAC unit comprised of 6 vaccinated people and 5 nin-vacvinated people. All 5 got COVID in the same week, none if the 6 did. 4 of the 5 have recovered, one (in his mid 30's) remains in the ICU. The 6 who took the vacvine never got sick.

That is data.

That can be interpreted as proof the vacvine works. But it can also be pointed out that this was not under scientific observation (variables are unknown and it was impossible to have a pure constant).

Scientists say the vaccine works. In theory it certainly should (as the vaccine produces antibodies). But other scientists will point out challenges and point out the lack of true scientific observation.

 

[Wingman68]

Pfizer Omitted Industry-Standard Safety Studies

TrialSite News reports6 that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP).”

Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk-benefit analysis underlying the vaccines’ emergency use authorization. As reported by TrialSite News:7

“Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged, or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced after the second shot.

Women have reported changes in menstruation after taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) — which are also common during COVID-19 disease — are also reported. In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product.

Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a ‘surrogate’ mRNA producing the luciferase protein.

These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine.

It is certainly understandable why the vaccine was rushed into use as an experimental product under emergency use authority, but these new findings suggest that routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use.

People are now receiving injections with an mRNA gene therapy-based vaccine, which produces the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their cells, and the vaccine may be also delivering the mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs and tissues (which may include ovaries).”

These vaccines are still not approved, the data is not complete, that is why it is emergency use designated.

 

[canadyjd]

No. The data is data. The data is collected, however it is not based on scientific observation.

For example, I have observed a HVAC unit comprised of 6 vaccinated people and 5 nin-vacvinated people. All 5 got COVID in the same week, none if the 6 did. 4 of the 5 have recovered, one (in his mid 30's) remains in the ICU. The 6 who took the vacvine never got sick.

That is data.

That can be interpreted as proof the vacvine works. But it can also be pointed out that this was not under scientific observation (variables are unknown and it was impossible to have a pure constant).

Scientists say the vaccine works. In theory it certainly should (as the vaccine produces antibodies). But other scientists will point out challenges and point out the lack of true scientific observation.

Your personal observations of the HVAC unit’s staff does not constitute a scientific “study”.

If the Cleveland Clinic publishes a study subject to scientific peer review, that is science, and I’m certain they used the scientific method in coming to the conclusion.

The scientific data shows the vaccine is about 95% effective in preventing infection from COVID virus. The data is unclear concerning side effects, though it seems to trend toward a small risk.

Obviously, if you haven’t had the virus, the vaccine seems to be a good safe option for adults. The results for children is less certain. Recent reports show major risks of side effects for children that have, generally speaking, very low medical problems if exposed to the virus.

When we get more data, we may find vaccinating children created more medical problems for them than had they not been vaccinated at all.

If you have had the virus, the scientific data shows a person gets no benefit from taking the vaccine and is exposed to a small risk of complications.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Your personal observations of the HVAC unit’s staff does not constitute a scientific “study”.

If the Cleveland Clinic publishes a study subject to scientific peer review, that is science, and I’m certain they used the scientific method in coming to the conclusion.

The scientific data shows the vaccine is about 95% effective in preventing infection from COVID virus. The data is unclear concerning side effects, though it seems to trend toward a small risk.

Obviously, if you haven’t had the virus, the vaccine seems to be a good safe option for adults. The results for children is less certain. Recent reports show major risks of side effects for children that have, generally speaking, very low medical problems if exposed to the virus.

When we get more data, we may find vaccinating children created more medical problems for them than had they not been vaccinated at all.

If you have had the virus, the scientific data shows a person gets no benefit from taking the vaccine and is exposed to a small risk of complications.

peace to you

Exactly (that is my point).

But here we also have a big question.

You say when we get more data, we may find vaccinating children created more medical problems for them than had they not been vaccinated at all. But that is reaching without any cause. None of the vaccines are approved for children (yet). It has just recently been approved for teens (12 to 15).

If you had COVID should you get the vacvine (good question)? With other viruses, like the flu, the answer would be that the vaccine provides more protection for other versions. But I don't know. To me it seems that antibodies would be antibodies and the vaccine - while perhaps not a bad idea - obsolete. But the question seems to be just how much protection a past infection has verses the vaccine (which is why many experts say you still need the vaccine).

In the end it is a personal decision. If you listen to the "experts" it will depend on which "experts" you listen to. For every conspiracy "scientific" paper there is a pro "scientific" paper. But they are all posing opinions that are not based on scientific observation of actual cases. People have had COVID twice and people who have been vaccinated ended up with COVID at a later date.

 

[Reynolds]

True, but a business should have the right to request that those not vaccinated wear a mask or to adopt a policy that everyone entering the building must wear a mask. You have the right to refuse to enter if you disagree and some restaurants require a jacket and tie. Nobody screams "I have a right to dine naked if I want!"

Really they shouldn't. Wearing cloth on your face and rebreathing CO2 is a health issue. Businesses should not be able to mandate things that can cause health problems.

 

[atpollard]

Really they shouldn't. Wearing cloth on your face and rebreathing CO2 is a health issue. Businesses should not be able to mandate things that can cause health problems.

... and clothing and interfere with transpiration and the ability of the body to regulate temperature, so "I have a right to dine naked if I want!"

 

[Reynolds]

... and clothing and interfere with transpiration and the ability of the body to regulate temperature, so "I have a right to dine naked if I want!"

Laws deal with that.

 

[atpollard]

Laws deal with that.

Laws deal with wearing masks.
I thought that was the point of this discussion: Is it right for them to do so?