6 ms·

I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of va

by cbeach 2y ago

I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of vaccine technology is not flawless, but it has decades of successful deployment and study.

sethammons 2y ago
To downvoters, really, why? I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response. My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  It's a variation on the prisoners dilemma. The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be. The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way. It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    I agree, but this made me think: Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect? Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    > The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it? Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them. We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.
  - cbeach 2y ago
    If you want to chastise those who elected against having mRNA injections, you'd better be sure you have the correct information on how the mRNA jabs prevented transmission (or not). You may find the following interesting: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      I didn't chastise anyone. I was explaining, because it was asked, why you were being heavily downvoted.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  For one, it's NOT too new, biology has been using mRNA forever. mRNA is well characterized, and well understood. mRNA for use in vaccines has been rolling around in research for a decade or so as well. What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?
  - sethammons 2y ago
    Seeing as at first they said any unexpected reaction would be impossible because "science" and then reports of myocarditis came in and people said "impossible" which then became "maybe" which then became "yeah, in some cases, but the disease is worse!" The tech was new enough we didn't know about the myocarditis potential side effect. Everyone was so sure, just like you seem to be. "It doesn't work like that" -- except it does cause myocarditis in some patients
    - dent9876543 2y ago
      All the while forgetting that benefit is heavily skewed. Those that would really benefit from its protection are often the same group that would be knocked sideways by its side effects (the very old, infirm, already sick or otherwise vulnerable). The majority get nothing much in terms of side-effects, but also nothing much in terms of protection over what our bodies could already do for us. There’s only a small group that are vulnerable enough to benefit significantly, while also being strong enough to tolerate it.
  - cbeach 2y ago
    > biology has been using mRNA forever I'm not sure "biology" uses a synthesiser to build nucleic acid into a man-made sequence, and then injects it into the muscles (or accidentally injects it into a blood vessel) of billions of people within the space of a few months. > What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body? Dr Robert Malone is one of the founding fathers of mRNA vaccine technology. You can read his impressive body of research on the subject here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ He made a video statement regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines which I found very alarming. He described negative effects on the heart, brain, lungs and reproductive system. I won't post links here in case I am cancelled for doing so. For whistleblowing about the mRNA vaccines he was made an instant pariah online, and there was a swift campaign to cancel and silence him, with media outlets instantly refuting his statements (interesting how media "factcheckers" deemed themselves more qualified to opine on mRNA vaccine technology than Dr Robert Malone himself). I'm not a scientist (at least, not a scientist of biology), and I don't know if Malone was right or wrong about the jabs. However, the Malone episode made it clear to me that society is NOT "doing science" correctly, while politicians and the media suppress any inconvenient scientific opinions while rolling out their policies and lucrative Big Pharma contracts.

by cbeach 2y ago

sethammons 2y ago

To downvoters, really, why? I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response. My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"

stevenAthompson 2y ago
It's a variation on the prisoners dilemma. The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be. The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way. It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  I agree, but this made me think: Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect? Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  > The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it? Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them. We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.
- cbeach 2y ago
  If you want to chastise those who elected against having mRNA injections, you'd better be sure you have the correct information on how the mRNA jabs prevented transmission (or not). You may find the following interesting: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    I didn't chastise anyone. I was explaining, because it was asked, why you were being heavily downvoted.
mrguyorama 2y ago
For one, it's NOT too new, biology has been using mRNA forever. mRNA is well characterized, and well understood. mRNA for use in vaccines has been rolling around in research for a decade or so as well. What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?
- sethammons 2y ago
  Seeing as at first they said any unexpected reaction would be impossible because "science" and then reports of myocarditis came in and people said "impossible" which then became "maybe" which then became "yeah, in some cases, but the disease is worse!" The tech was new enough we didn't know about the myocarditis potential side effect. Everyone was so sure, just like you seem to be. "It doesn't work like that" -- except it does cause myocarditis in some patients
  - dent9876543 2y ago
    All the while forgetting that benefit is heavily skewed. Those that would really benefit from its protection are often the same group that would be knocked sideways by its side effects (the very old, infirm, already sick or otherwise vulnerable). The majority get nothing much in terms of side-effects, but also nothing much in terms of protection over what our bodies could already do for us. There’s only a small group that are vulnerable enough to benefit significantly, while also being strong enough to tolerate it.
- cbeach 2y ago
  > biology has been using mRNA forever I'm not sure "biology" uses a synthesiser to build nucleic acid into a man-made sequence, and then injects it into the muscles (or accidentally injects it into a blood vessel) of billions of people within the space of a few months. > What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body? Dr Robert Malone is one of the founding fathers of mRNA vaccine technology. You can read his impressive body of research on the subject here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ He made a video statement regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines which I found very alarming. He described negative effects on the heart, brain, lungs and reproductive system. I won't post links here in case I am cancelled for doing so. For whistleblowing about the mRNA vaccines he was made an instant pariah online, and there was a swift campaign to cancel and silence him, with media outlets instantly refuting his statements (interesting how media "factcheckers" deemed themselves more qualified to opine on mRNA vaccine technology than Dr Robert Malone himself). I'm not a scientist (at least, not a scientist of biology), and I don't know if Malone was right or wrong about the jabs. However, the Malone episode made it clear to me that society is NOT "doing science" correctly, while politicians and the media suppress any inconvenient scientific opinions while rolling out their policies and lucrative Big Pharma contracts.