Unvaccinated "varient factories"

[Reynolds]

This is not convincing at all.

Think about the argument you are putting before the reader: you are saying that Pfizer is a "failed" vaccine because it has relatively low efficacy in preventing infection.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, worldwide who have not died and not been hospitalized because they have been vaccinated.

A vaccine that prevents serious illness and death is most certainly not a "failed" vaccine even if it has zero % chance of preventing an infection.

The criteria is the criteria. Has been the same forever. Go ahead and move the goal posts if you like.

 

[Reynolds]

Well, this doctor is then at odds with the overwhelming majority of experts who simple message is:

Get vaccinated.

It is highly misleading, I suggest, to tell people with no medical expertise to "weigh your risk factors".

What risk factors? What condition, short of the rare person with a history of violent reactions to vaccines, are there to consider?

Read the vaccine warning sheet in CDC website.

 

[Reynolds]

Just think, if covid gets reduced to just a serious bug, what are the dems gonna use for “sheeple control”? Right now their fear mongering is working to a large extent with the “variants” popping up, so they ain’t gonna let that go without a fight. After all, how are the teachers unions gonna sit on their duff WITH PAY without the virus to excuse working????
Something for both pro & anti vaxers to consider!

Seems like they already trying to get Ebola stirred up again. Sure the Dems and Chinese jointly working on Sars3 somewhere in an underground lab.

 

[Andre]

The criteria is the criteria. Has been the same forever. Go ahead and move the goal posts if you like.

Let me ask you this simple question: Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

How can you possibly answer this honestly without undermining your own claim?

 

[Andre]

Read the vaccine warning sheet in CDC website.

Misleading, of course.

You have to know that, while the experts do warn about side-effects, they are virtually unanimous in their advocacy for the vaccine.

Let's be clear: the case for the vaccine is so overwhelming that those who insist on taking a contrary position are forced to engaged in distortion, cherry-picking, appealing to disreputable sources, and all manner of other trickery to try to defend their ground.

 

[Reynolds]

Let me ask you this simple question: Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

How can you possibly answer this honestly without undermining your own claim?

So, you want to make a new set of rules for one Covid vaccine?

 

[Andre]

So, you want to make a new set of rules for one Covid vaccine?

Please just answer my question.

 

[JonC]

So, you want to make a new set of rules for one Covid vaccine?

What "new set of rules"?

Most of our vaccines "greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission".

These include vaccines against measles, the flu vaccine, and the pneumonia vaccine. Very versatile vaccines offer sterilising immunity (although that is always the goal).

I guess my question is why would you want to make new rules for covid vaccines?

 

[Reynolds]

What "new set of rules"?

Most of our vaccines "greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission".

These include vaccines against measles, the flu vaccine, and the pneumonia vaccine. Very versatile vaccines offer sterilising immunity (although that is always the goal).

I guess my question is why would you want to make new rules for covid vaccines?

I am not. According to the Houston Dr. that is the standard FDA has always used to determine if a vaccine passes or fails efficacy.
He said Moderna will most likely pass.

I guess my question is why you want to leave an inferior vaccine on market if a superior one is available in sufficient quantity.

It appears 2 dose Jantzen will handily beat both.

 

[JonC]

I am not. According to the Houston Dr. that is the standard FDA has always used to determine if a vaccine passes or fails efficacy.
He said Moderna will most likely pass.

I guess my question is why you want to leave an inferior vaccine on market if a superior one is available in sufficient quantity.

It appears 2 dose Jantzen will handily beat both.

I do not understand the standard you are talking about.

 

[Reynolds]

Please just answer my question.

I did. If it fails the standard that has always been used, it fails.

 

[Andre]

I did. If it fails the standard that has already been used, it fails.

You did NOT answer my question. Here it is again:

Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

 

[Reynolds]

You did NOT answer my question. Here it is again:

Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

My answer is if it fails, it fails.
The other two seem to pass. Use them. Giving people a vaccine that is failing when others are not failing and are in abundant supply makes sense to you?

 

[Andre]

My answer is if it fails, it fails.
The other two seem to pass. Use them. Giving people a vaccine that is failing when others are not failing and are in abundant supply makes sense to you?

You are, of course, not answering my specific question. Yet again:

Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

We all know why you are not answering this question - you are not answering because you know that you would have to answer that, yes, it would be wise to take a vaccine that reduces illness and death even if it failed some standard about preventing transmission.

 

[Reynolds]

You are, of course, not answering my specific question. Yet again:

Regardless of "official" criteria for vaccine success, are you suggesting that a vaccine that greatly diminishes the risk of serious illness and death, with very little risk, even if it does not prevent transmission, is not something a reasonable person would want to take?

We all know why you are not answering this question - you are not answering because you know that you would have to answer that, yes, it would be wise to take a vaccine that reduces illness and death even if it failed some standard about preventing transmission.

The answer is no, when a better alternative is available in abundant supply.

 

[Andre]

The answer is no, when a better alternative is available in abundant supply.

What alternative provides better protection against serious illness and death than the current vaccines?

And please cite a credible source.