6 ms·

The science is evolving, and these differences from a year ago are proof of that. I don't think the vaccine makers were very proud to admit that their wonderdr

The science is evolving, and these differences from a year ago are proof of that. I don't think the vaccine makers were very proud to admit that their wonderdrug wasn't what it was promised to be, but that's the way it is. The only remaining choice for anti-vaxxers in the face of increasingly contagious variants is take the shot or risk death. Your call.

cies 5y ago
> The science is evolving Science got massively oversold. Who did that? Who benefits from that? > The only remaining choice for anti-vaxxers in the face of increasingly contagious variants is take the shot or risk death. Your call. I think if you call anyone hesitant to take these shots an anti-vaxxer, you contribute to making the narative so everything extreme. Many that are "c19 vaccine hesitant" are vaccinating their children on the locally standard schedule. It is just that this c19 vaccine is a bit different: did not yet stand the test of time and it is in many cases a whole new therapy (mRNA therapy's debut). > take the shot or risk death This sounds so dramatic. This choice is everywhere, just not with so much media attention. Diets, traffic accidents, extreme sports, ... I think we should use vaccines only to protect those at risk, and/or those who want protection by it. Once they have the shot it's over. The media is pushing a story that we need to all get vaccinated to protect others. I think, given the research, that this is never going to happen (virus will stay in corners of the world with unvaccinated people, virus will have new variants: virus will stay with us).
- Reason077 5y ago
  > "It is just that this c19 vaccine is a bit different: did not yet stand the test of time and it is in many cases a whole new therapy (mRNA therapy's debut)." At this point, surely the various c19 vaccines are the most highly scrutinised and widely administered vaccines developed in the past 50 years or so. More than 6 billion shots administered, and counting. How much more time do you need?
  - pigeonhole123 5y ago
    Even Pfizer’s own RCT showed no benefit for all cause mortality at six months. Covid deaths were replaced by CVD deaths
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > Even Pfizer’s own RCT showed no benefit for all cause mortality at six months There are countries that have had Pfizer rollouts to millions of people over the last 8 months ( 1) . If this were true in the real world, the excess mortality would have shown up in the real-world data by now. It has not. it's rubbish. You tout this false and trivially falsifiable "fact" repeatedly. Quit it. https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-021-00440-6 https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-021-...
      - pigeonhole123 5y ago
        Quoting the vaccine manufacturer’s own gold standard study is “rubbish”. I honestly did not see that one coming.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        You're misrepresenting the study. That study never had enough statistical power to detect a reduction in deaths. It's disingenuous to simply cry "no reduction in deaths! manufacturer study!" https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Are you saying that this finding does hold up in the real world? Despite .. the real world? You honestly should see it coming that would be told that you're talking rubbish - you have trotted out this junk talking point repeatedly, and been told that this is not correct several times now, it was only a matter of time it is said directly.

cies 5y ago

> The science is evolving Science got massively oversold. Who did that? Who benefits from that? > The only remaining choice for anti-vaxxers in the face of increasingly contagious variants is take the shot or risk death. Your call. I think if you call anyone hesitant to take these shots an anti-vaxxer, you contribute to making the narative so everything extreme. Many that are "c19 vaccine hesitant" are vaccinating their children on the locally standard schedule. It is just that this c19 vaccine is a bit different: did not yet stand the test of time and it is in many cases a whole new therapy (mRNA therapy's debut). > take the shot or risk death This sounds so dramatic. This choice is everywhere, just not with so much media attention. Diets, traffic accidents, extreme sports, ... I think we should use vaccines only to protect those at risk, and/or those who want protection by it. Once they have the shot it's over. The media is pushing a story that we need to all get vaccinated to protect others. I think, given the research, that this is never going to happen (virus will stay in corners of the world with unvaccinated people, virus will have new variants: virus will stay with us).

Reason077 5y ago
> "It is just that this c19 vaccine is a bit different: did not yet stand the test of time and it is in many cases a whole new therapy (mRNA therapy's debut)." At this point, surely the various c19 vaccines are the most highly scrutinised and widely administered vaccines developed in the past 50 years or so. More than 6 billion shots administered, and counting. How much more time do you need?
- pigeonhole123 5y ago
  Even Pfizer’s own RCT showed no benefit for all cause mortality at six months. Covid deaths were replaced by CVD deaths
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Even Pfizer’s own RCT showed no benefit for all cause mortality at six months There are countries that have had Pfizer rollouts to millions of people over the last 8 months ( 1) . If this were true in the real world, the excess mortality would have shown up in the real-world data by now. It has not. it's rubbish. You tout this false and trivially falsifiable "fact" repeatedly. Quit it. https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-021-00440-6 https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-021-...
    - pigeonhole123 5y ago
      Quoting the vaccine manufacturer’s own gold standard study is “rubbish”. I honestly did not see that one coming.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        You're misrepresenting the study. That study never had enough statistical power to detect a reduction in deaths. It's disingenuous to simply cry "no reduction in deaths! manufacturer study!" https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-964291665925
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Are you saying that this finding does hold up in the real world? Despite .. the real world? You honestly should see it coming that would be told that you're talking rubbish - you have trotted out this junk talking point repeatedly, and been told that this is not correct several times now, it was only a matter of time it is said directly.