4 ms·

Vaccinate the high risk people then.

by peteradio 5y ago

camgunz 5y ago
This doesn't work because non-vaccinated people will breed variants, which the original vaccine won't work on.
- NeutronStar 5y ago
  What you're saying is kill all bats and all other animals because they don't get vaccinated and produce variants of viruses?
- peteradio 5y ago
  Sounds like boosters are needed regardless. High risk people get boosters, problem solved.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    Sure but in the interim, high risk people die. Your argument is essentially "I would rather not get a vaccine, even in the face of some high risk people dying". My argument is "I would rather everyone (within reason) get a vaccine, even in the face of some people not liking it".
- frankfrankfrank 5y ago
  That is clearly not logically consistent. I also know that the following will be very bothersome to hear for many people and I hope to . Nothing would indicate that unvaccinated would lead to mutations, especially over vaccinated whose vaccination does not actually perform as well as natural immunity developed from the body naturally building immunity. What is actually bing discussed in the non-corporate medical community and research is starting to validate the very well understood theory that relatively poorly performing vaccines are actually going to lead to mutations if they haven't already. It is the same concept that has led to "antibiotic resistant bacteria" when antibiotics are either overused or not used as long as they should be, leaving the most resistant bacteria to reproduce. I realize it must be difficult to accept such a contradiction to what people are told by the corporate media and corporate medical industrial complex. It also requires accepting and acknowledging that may have been injected with an untested/risky novel experimental medial compound for no good reason, but that it will likely also lead to even worse variants that will require ever more vaccines that are ever less tested and will increase risks of adverse reactions with every single event. No matter what, we have clearly cast the die and things have clearly been fundamentally shifted in ways that are clearly carry unknown outcomes. THAT should really worry people, even if we all survive this particular event, scathing by relatively unharmed. What happens when the next virus comes around that may actually be as dangerous as we were scared about and some or maybe all of the next rushed vaccines trigger antibody-dependent enhancement or some other mortal effect that kills millions with no way to prevent it. We ARE playing with fire here. No matter how we look at it. Someone, possibly many, will be get burned at some point probably far sooner than one would think.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    I am away from my home in the state of Nebraska now because my mother-in-law was one of the small number of people to experience a highly adverse event from her second Pfizer shot. She went into cardiac arrest 3 hours after getting her shot. It's been over a week now and they will be taking her off life support shortly because she is now brain dead. It should be noted that this is a rare event and I do recommend to my loved ones especially my father and her to get vaccinated. That being said no media organizations are going to report what happened to my mother-in-law. They know if they do so it will create vaccine hesitancy in many people. I understand and empathize with this but it does raise ethical questions. The corporate media are perfectly happy to stay silent on this because they no longer view their role as informing the public, but rather as getting the public to do what they think is right. They are happy to report on statistically improbable events as long as they are part of their overall political narrative. For every person that reflexively responds to me that what happened to my mother-in-law is a rare event, the same people won't hesitate to talk about the George Floyd murder as if it's a typical occurrence in police interactions with black men. The data shows this to be not true at all but they don't care because their narrative is all they care about. My point is that this vaccine technology is definitely new and it's probably going to be revolutionary and saving tremendous numbers of lives especially in Africa with malaria. However because it's so new there are going to be bad things happening from it as well and folks who deny this are making problems worse. What happened to my mother-in-law is now being used as fuel by various people my family who are Alex Jones followers. The reaction from the medical establishment and the complete lack of coverage in the media has further added ammunition to this idiot in my family. Suppressing information always creates a backlash every time.
    - Vecr 5y ago
      Is this written up anywhere public, preprint, VAERS, etc?
      - JPKab 5y ago
        When I was visiting her yesterday afternoon, the attending physician confirmed with us that her case had been reported to the VAERS system.
- lbeltrame 5y ago
  Can you provide some evidence that this happened now, or for earlier diseases? Manaus in Brazil doesn't count, FTR. It never ever reached herd immunity: the data was a large overestimation.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    I think my evidence is that there are variants. Isn't the way variants work: - A human gets infected - The human becomes a virus factory - While producing gazillions of viruses, mutations occur - Mutations are variants
    - beagle3 5y ago
      The most prolific by far variant factories are apparently immunocompromised individuals, including those vaccinated - which harbor infection for months and a weak immune system - which lets the virus optimize against weak humans, in the same way the traditional vaccines lets the immune system optimize against a weak virus. (From memory, don’t have a link handy)
      - camgunz 5y ago
        Yeah I mean, we're (presumably) both doing some armchair virology, but I buy that if you're immunocompromised that you can't fight off the virus, and thus the virus succeeds in turning you into a virus factory until you die. That said, I don't think that's an argument against non-immunocompromised people getting vaccinated. It's like me saying "don't touch the toaster if it were just on, you'll get burned" and you responding "yeah but ovens really burn you." OK well, be careful around both I guess.
        kokx 5y ago
        It is a great argument that non-immunocompromised people should get vaccinated. If non-immunocompromised people are vaccinated, the probability that immunocompromised people get infected gets smaller, thus causing less variants.
bassdropvroom 5y ago
Some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Paradigma11 5y ago
Many high risk ppl cant get vaccinated, because they are, well, high risk.

Vaccinate the high risk people then.

camgunz 5y ago

This doesn't work because non-vaccinated people will breed variants, which the original vaccine won't work on.

NeutronStar 5y ago
What you're saying is kill all bats and all other animals because they don't get vaccinated and produce variants of viruses?
peteradio 5y ago
Sounds like boosters are needed regardless. High risk people get boosters, problem solved.
- camgunz 5y ago
  Sure but in the interim, high risk people die. Your argument is essentially "I would rather not get a vaccine, even in the face of some high risk people dying". My argument is "I would rather everyone (within reason) get a vaccine, even in the face of some people not liking it".
frankfrankfrank 5y ago
That is clearly not logically consistent. I also know that the following will be very bothersome to hear for many people and I hope to . Nothing would indicate that unvaccinated would lead to mutations, especially over vaccinated whose vaccination does not actually perform as well as natural immunity developed from the body naturally building immunity. What is actually bing discussed in the non-corporate medical community and research is starting to validate the very well understood theory that relatively poorly performing vaccines are actually going to lead to mutations if they haven't already. It is the same concept that has led to "antibiotic resistant bacteria" when antibiotics are either overused or not used as long as they should be, leaving the most resistant bacteria to reproduce. I realize it must be difficult to accept such a contradiction to what people are told by the corporate media and corporate medical industrial complex. It also requires accepting and acknowledging that may have been injected with an untested/risky novel experimental medial compound for no good reason, but that it will likely also lead to even worse variants that will require ever more vaccines that are ever less tested and will increase risks of adverse reactions with every single event. No matter what, we have clearly cast the die and things have clearly been fundamentally shifted in ways that are clearly carry unknown outcomes. THAT should really worry people, even if we all survive this particular event, scathing by relatively unharmed. What happens when the next virus comes around that may actually be as dangerous as we were scared about and some or maybe all of the next rushed vaccines trigger antibody-dependent enhancement or some other mortal effect that kills millions with no way to prevent it. We ARE playing with fire here. No matter how we look at it. Someone, possibly many, will be get burned at some point probably far sooner than one would think.
- JPKab 5y ago
  I am away from my home in the state of Nebraska now because my mother-in-law was one of the small number of people to experience a highly adverse event from her second Pfizer shot. She went into cardiac arrest 3 hours after getting her shot. It's been over a week now and they will be taking her off life support shortly because she is now brain dead. It should be noted that this is a rare event and I do recommend to my loved ones especially my father and her to get vaccinated. That being said no media organizations are going to report what happened to my mother-in-law. They know if they do so it will create vaccine hesitancy in many people. I understand and empathize with this but it does raise ethical questions. The corporate media are perfectly happy to stay silent on this because they no longer view their role as informing the public, but rather as getting the public to do what they think is right. They are happy to report on statistically improbable events as long as they are part of their overall political narrative. For every person that reflexively responds to me that what happened to my mother-in-law is a rare event, the same people won't hesitate to talk about the George Floyd murder as if it's a typical occurrence in police interactions with black men. The data shows this to be not true at all but they don't care because their narrative is all they care about. My point is that this vaccine technology is definitely new and it's probably going to be revolutionary and saving tremendous numbers of lives especially in Africa with malaria. However because it's so new there are going to be bad things happening from it as well and folks who deny this are making problems worse. What happened to my mother-in-law is now being used as fuel by various people my family who are Alex Jones followers. The reaction from the medical establishment and the complete lack of coverage in the media has further added ammunition to this idiot in my family. Suppressing information always creates a backlash every time.
  - Vecr 5y ago
    Is this written up anywhere public, preprint, VAERS, etc?
    - JPKab 5y ago
      When I was visiting her yesterday afternoon, the attending physician confirmed with us that her case had been reported to the VAERS system.
lbeltrame 5y ago
Can you provide some evidence that this happened now, or for earlier diseases? Manaus in Brazil doesn't count, FTR. It never ever reached herd immunity: the data was a large overestimation.
- camgunz 5y ago
  I think my evidence is that there are variants. Isn't the way variants work: - A human gets infected - The human becomes a virus factory - While producing gazillions of viruses, mutations occur - Mutations are variants
  - beagle3 5y ago
    The most prolific by far variant factories are apparently immunocompromised individuals, including those vaccinated - which harbor infection for months and a weak immune system - which lets the virus optimize against weak humans, in the same way the traditional vaccines lets the immune system optimize against a weak virus. (From memory, don’t have a link handy)
    - camgunz 5y ago
      Yeah I mean, we're (presumably) both doing some armchair virology, but I buy that if you're immunocompromised that you can't fight off the virus, and thus the virus succeeds in turning you into a virus factory until you die. That said, I don't think that's an argument against non-immunocompromised people getting vaccinated. It's like me saying "don't touch the toaster if it were just on, you'll get burned" and you responding "yeah but ovens really burn you." OK well, be careful around both I guess.
      - kokx 5y ago
        It is a great argument that non-immunocompromised people should get vaccinated. If non-immunocompromised people are vaccinated, the probability that immunocompromised people get infected gets smaller, thus causing less variants.

bassdropvroom 5y ago

Some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Paradigma11 5y ago

Many high risk ppl cant get vaccinated, because they are, well, high risk.