6 ms·

NPR yesterday was interviewing a guy who'd had an organ transplant and thus has to take immunosuppressant drugs. He'd been vaccinated, it was either pfizer or m

NPR yesterday was interviewing a guy who'd had an organ transplant and thus has to take immunosuppressant drugs. He'd been vaccinated, it was either pfizer or moderna. His doctor tested him for antibodies, his were undetectable. He was getting a third shot in hopes it would finally give him antibodies. By being against vaccines or against vaccine requirements, people risk the lives of those like that guy, who's already suffering and already has to be 10x as cautious.

colordrops 5y ago
Using this reasoning shouldn't the flu vaccine also be required? Many immunosuppressed individuals cannot survive the flu. BTW, I'm not implying a stance here as pro- or anti- vaccine requirements - just probing this particular talking point.
- prawn 5y ago
  I've seen it suggested that annual flu shots be required in some contexts. My main reason for not getting flu shots is laziness; my wife gets one annually.
EricMausler 5y ago
You can support vaccines without support a government mandate of them and all the operational xlusterfuxks that come with that
fny 5y ago
The real question though is do policies like this affect change or do they only stoke animosity. This is a sincere question. Do we know that the activities where vaccines are required are in fact hotspots? If you consider states that did full lockdowns compared to those that didn't but had mask mandates (California and New York vs texas Florida), there wasn't an appreciable difference in cases or deaths suggesting the mechanism of transition lied outside the reach of government. What's to say people still won't congregate elsewhere? In turn, I'm not convinced this will incentivize people to vaccinate. My mother refuses to get the shot and digs in more against it as penalties show up. Sure this is and data, but I know that many, many people have left New York City due to what they considered draconian lockdowns and I suspect many more people might leave to "freer" pastures. I'm not convinced this will achieve the intended objective, but instead far more animosity and pushback which is what you see in this thread which is far more tame than what the general population thinks. Would love to hear a rebuttal.
aimkey 5y ago
I have an autoimmune disorder (caused by a drug trial of an immunotherapy I was on due to cancer). I haven’t taken the vaccine because my cohort has been excluded from every trial and study. There is no (serious) guidance on how I’m supposed to schedule my regular biologic shot in concert with a vaccine dose. The CDC actually has a section on their website saying how people with auto immune issues were excluded from trials, and that they should weigh risk/reward with their doctor. Then in the next sentence they recommend getting the vaccine anyways. Totally unscientific and dangerous position from the CDC. During this past year I’ve had to disclose my medical condition to my employer against my will due to my county’s disclosure requirements. And I have to fight with coworkers who say people in my cohort should “just get it” despite not being included in trials and despite there being no timing/drug interaction guidance. So a big FUCK YOU from me. Vaccine requirements, along with vaccine status disclosure requirements, have destroyed my medical privacy and ostracized me at work. I’m trying to take a scientific position based on trials that actually included people in my position, and not end up like the guy you’re talking about having to take 3 and 4 and 5 shots because my biologic suppressed the immune response. Basically you’re asking me to take all of the risk of injecting an experimental drug into my arm, perhaps 1-2 times more than the typical person, without any of the reward (immunity), AND without any actual scientific basis for the treatment in the first place. Again, FUCK YOU
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  You could convey your personal experience and how it weighs against the other person's without being an ass about it. You may not like being in a marginal group, but you should realize how very few people in this country are discussing your situation when they talk about the unvaccinated. There are tens of millions of people in the country who are willingly unvaccinated, and almost the entirety of them are people who do not have autoimmune disorders. In fact, the people pushing for mandates are often using your situation - that of someone for whom the vaccine is ineffective - as reason for a requirement. So chill.
  - aimkey 5y ago
    Medical freedom should be absolute. It’s only because of totalitarian midwits like you trying to force policy that I’m in the situation I’m in. And I know first-hand what it’s like to have your health destroyed by an experimental drug, unlike you. People without underlying conditions have a right to avoid the vaccine. I say this as an at-risk individual. You understand that modern vaccines have been pulled from the schedule post-marketing, right? Rotavirus gen 1 was pulled for destroying the intestines of newborns after it was already on the CDC schedule. The analysis of Pandemrix showing that it was linked to narcolepsy was not done until years after swine flu. Hesitancy of the current mRNA vaccines is perfectly reasonable, purely for chronological reasons. Volume of test subjects does not make up for lack of long term data, and only people saying otherwise benefit financially from you ignoring that fact. Ultimately, given the lack of long term data, the reasonable policy should have been anti body testing before vaccination. Detectable anti bodies = no vaccine, go about your life. But that’s too reasonable. Instead we’ll force everyone to buy the new pharma product, expose everyone’s medical history, and not check any edge or corner cases while doubling down on our laughable position.

colordrops 5y ago

Using this reasoning shouldn't the flu vaccine also be required? Many immunosuppressed individuals cannot survive the flu. BTW, I'm not implying a stance here as pro- or anti- vaccine requirements - just probing this particular talking point.

prawn 5y ago
I've seen it suggested that annual flu shots be required in some contexts. My main reason for not getting flu shots is laziness; my wife gets one annually.

EricMausler 5y ago

You can support vaccines without support a government mandate of them and all the operational xlusterfuxks that come with that

fny 5y ago

The real question though is do policies like this affect change or do they only stoke animosity. This is a sincere question. Do we know that the activities where vaccines are required are in fact hotspots? If you consider states that did full lockdowns compared to those that didn't but had mask mandates (California and New York vs texas Florida), there wasn't an appreciable difference in cases or deaths suggesting the mechanism of transition lied outside the reach of government. What's to say people still won't congregate elsewhere? In turn, I'm not convinced this will incentivize people to vaccinate. My mother refuses to get the shot and digs in more against it as penalties show up. Sure this is and data, but I know that many, many people have left New York City due to what they considered draconian lockdowns and I suspect many more people might leave to "freer" pastures. I'm not convinced this will achieve the intended objective, but instead far more animosity and pushback which is what you see in this thread which is far more tame than what the general population thinks. Would love to hear a rebuttal.

aimkey 5y ago

I have an autoimmune disorder (caused by a drug trial of an immunotherapy I was on due to cancer). I haven’t taken the vaccine because my cohort has been excluded from every trial and study. There is no (serious) guidance on how I’m supposed to schedule my regular biologic shot in concert with a vaccine dose. The CDC actually has a section on their website saying how people with auto immune issues were excluded from trials, and that they should weigh risk/reward with their doctor. Then in the next sentence they recommend getting the vaccine anyways. Totally unscientific and dangerous position from the CDC. During this past year I’ve had to disclose my medical condition to my employer against my will due to my county’s disclosure requirements. And I have to fight with coworkers who say people in my cohort should “just get it” despite not being included in trials and despite there being no timing/drug interaction guidance. So a big FUCK YOU from me. Vaccine requirements, along with vaccine status disclosure requirements, have destroyed my medical privacy and ostracized me at work. I’m trying to take a scientific position based on trials that actually included people in my position, and not end up like the guy you’re talking about having to take 3 and 4 and 5 shots because my biologic suppressed the immune response. Basically you’re asking me to take all of the risk of injecting an experimental drug into my arm, perhaps 1-2 times more than the typical person, without any of the reward (immunity), AND without any actual scientific basis for the treatment in the first place. Again, FUCK YOU

unethical_ban 5y ago
You could convey your personal experience and how it weighs against the other person's without being an ass about it. You may not like being in a marginal group, but you should realize how very few people in this country are discussing your situation when they talk about the unvaccinated. There are tens of millions of people in the country who are willingly unvaccinated, and almost the entirety of them are people who do not have autoimmune disorders. In fact, the people pushing for mandates are often using your situation - that of someone for whom the vaccine is ineffective - as reason for a requirement. So chill.
- aimkey 5y ago
  Medical freedom should be absolute. It’s only because of totalitarian midwits like you trying to force policy that I’m in the situation I’m in. And I know first-hand what it’s like to have your health destroyed by an experimental drug, unlike you. People without underlying conditions have a right to avoid the vaccine. I say this as an at-risk individual. You understand that modern vaccines have been pulled from the schedule post-marketing, right? Rotavirus gen 1 was pulled for destroying the intestines of newborns after it was already on the CDC schedule. The analysis of Pandemrix showing that it was linked to narcolepsy was not done until years after swine flu. Hesitancy of the current mRNA vaccines is perfectly reasonable, purely for chronological reasons. Volume of test subjects does not make up for lack of long term data, and only people saying otherwise benefit financially from you ignoring that fact. Ultimately, given the lack of long term data, the reasonable policy should have been anti body testing before vaccination. Detectable anti bodies = no vaccine, go about your life. But that’s too reasonable. Instead we’ll force everyone to buy the new pharma product, expose everyone’s medical history, and not check any edge or corner cases while doubling down on our laughable position.