Has anyone submitted a religious exemption for the vaccine? How did the eperie

[OtherJen]

My workplace requires either a vaccine or regular testing. They sent out a guidance document today that included guidance on requesting a religious exemption for testing. Is that a thing? What religion could possible be against sticking a swab up your nose?

Very, very few recognized religious traditions (the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Christ Scientist are the only two that come to mind in the US).

[bacchi]

My workplace requires either a vaccine or regular testing. They sent out a guidance document today that included guidance on requesting a religious exemption for testing. Is that a thing? What religion could possible be against sticking a swab up your nose?

Very, very few recognized religious traditions (the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Christ Scientist are the only two that come to mind in the US).

There are some cults, too, but I guess if you worship at End Times Ministries, you're not working a normie job.

[innkeeper77]

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air-lines-vaccine-requirement-surcharge/

Employers are getting inventive with how they incentivize their employees to get vaccinated. 

If I were an employer who needed to allow employees to opt out of vaccination and substitute weekly tests, I'd require that the tests be done on their own time and own expense.  Just general inconvenience will get a number of holdouts to get the jab.

Interesting graphic. I respect each individuals to assess with their doctor their personal health and family situation with respect to this vaccine. So curious what the strongly pro vax mandate people believe is so important they force the vax upon the “nutters” as someone above called some of them, when the graphic here clearly shows scientifically that, if you’re vaxed, you have absolutely nothing to worry about?

Would be interested to hear some opinions there.

When the ICU's and hospitals are full, people with non covid issues are less able to access care.

As an example, if someone has a heart attack, and is vaccinated, covid anti vaxxers are making it more likely that the person with the heart attack dies.

Additionally, MY CHILD ISN'T VACCINATED. And not everyone can get the vaccine, and some unlucky people will not have the vaccine be effective. Herd immunity is supposed to help these people. That doesn't work when half the population is being intentionally selfish.

[boarder42]

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air-lines-vaccine-requirement-surcharge/

Employers are getting inventive with how they incentivize their employees to get vaccinated. 

If I were an employer who needed to allow employees to opt out of vaccination and substitute weekly tests, I'd require that the tests be done on their own time and own expense.  Just general inconvenience will get a number of holdouts to get the jab.

Interesting graphic. I respect each individuals to assess with their doctor their personal health and family situation with respect to this vaccine. So curious what the strongly pro vax mandate people believe is so important they force the vax upon the “nutters” as someone above called some of them, when the graphic here clearly shows scientifically that, if you’re vaxed, you have absolutely nothing to worry about?

Would be interested to hear some opinions there.

When the ICU's and hospitals are full, people with non covid issues are less able to access care.

As an example, if someone has a heart attack, and is vaccinated, covid anti vaxxers are making it more likely that the person with the heart attack dies.

Additionally, MY CHILD ISN'T VACCINATED. And not everyone can get the vaccine, and some unlucky people will not have the vaccine be effective. Herd immunity is supposed to help these people. That doesn't work when half the population is being intentionally selfish.

This and all the other points have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread. To which frugal saver keeps asking the same  question and ignoring the response

[MayDay]

It's days like these that I wish we didn't have a rule disallowing name calling.

[MudPuppy]

[ilsy]

Today's lecture is about personal freedom and smoking.

As we all know in 60s and 70s smoking was widely accepted and permitted nearly everywhere including hospitals, schools, buses and many more public places. But now no one even dares to think about smoking in a hospital or a school. If even 10-15 years ago there were still designated smoking areas in some stated, now they are gone. Please write a few paragraphs about personal freedom and smoking. Why smokers rights are not protected? Make sure to answer the question why is it ok now to forbid smoking in public places? Why no one questions this clear violation of personal freedom of smokers? Why landlords are allowed to write in their leases that smoking is prohibited on premises and moreover, why are they allowed to evict a tenant for violating the lease agreement by smoking on said premises? Why is it legal? Why many privately owned businesses do not allow smoking inside or even outside their buildings?

For an extra credit please write how enforcing a non smoking policy in hospitals/other public places is different from enforcing Covid vaccination policy.

[Villanelle]

Today's lecture is about personal freedom and smoking.

As we all know in 60s and 70s smoking was widely accepted and permitted nearly everywhere including hospitals, schools, buses and many more public places. But now no one even dares to think about smoking in a hospital or a school. If even 10-15 years ago there were still designated smoking areas in some stated, now they are gone. Please write a few paragraphs about personal freedom and smoking. Why smokers rights are not protected? Make sure to answer the question why is it ok now to forbid smoking in public places? Why no one questions this clear violation of personal freedom of smokers? Why landlords are allowed to write in their leases that smoking is prohibited on premises and moreover, why are they allowed to evict a tenant for violating the lease agreement by smoking on said premises? Why is it legal? Why many privately owned businesses do not allow smoking inside or even outside their buildings?

For an extra credit please write how enforcing a non smoking policy in hospitals/other public places is different from enforcing Covid vaccination policy.

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

[boarder42]

Today's lecture is about personal freedom and smoking.

As we all know in 60s and 70s smoking was widely accepted and permitted nearly everywhere including hospitals, schools, buses and many more public places. But now no one even dares to think about smoking in a hospital or a school. If even 10-15 years ago there were still designated smoking areas in some stated, now they are gone. Please write a few paragraphs about personal freedom and smoking. Why smokers rights are not protected? Make sure to answer the question why is it ok now to forbid smoking in public places? Why no one questions this clear violation of personal freedom of smokers? Why landlords are allowed to write in their leases that smoking is prohibited on premises and moreover, why are they allowed to evict a tenant for violating the lease agreement by smoking on said premises? Why is it legal? Why many privately owned businesses do not allow smoking inside or even outside their buildings?

For an extra credit please write how enforcing a non smoking policy in hospitals/other public places is different from enforcing Covid vaccination policy.

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

Bc there is no scientific proof that if I where pants you can't see my private areas. And that by me walking around naked how am I harming anyone. It's my choice. I have a right to go wherever I want whenever I want wearing nothing but my cigarette belt and colt 45 holster chain smoking to my heart's desire

[Morning Glory]

Today's lecture is about personal freedom and smoking.

As we all know in 60s and 70s smoking was widely accepted and permitted nearly everywhere including hospitals, schools, buses and many more public places. But now no one even dares to think about smoking in a hospital or a school. If even 10-15 years ago there were still designated smoking areas in some stated, now they are gone. Please write a few paragraphs about personal freedom and smoking. Why smokers rights are not protected? Make sure to answer the question why is it ok now to forbid smoking in public places? Why no one questions this clear violation of personal freedom of smokers? Why landlords are allowed to write in their leases that smoking is prohibited on premises and moreover, why are they allowed to evict a tenant for violating the lease agreement by smoking on said premises? Why is it legal? Why many privately owned businesses do not allow smoking inside or even outside their buildings?

For an extra credit please write how enforcing a non smoking policy in hospitals/other public places is different from enforcing Covid vaccination policy.

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

Bc there is no scientific proof that if I where pants you can't see my private areas. And that by me walking around naked how am I harming anyone. It's my choice. I have a right to go wherever I want whenever I want wearing nothing but my cigarette belt and colt 45 holster chain smoking to my heart's desire

But if you are driving in a car, you must wear a seatbelt, even though it really doesn't affect anyone else if you die in an accident, other than keeping the EMS people from tending to people having heart attacks and in general making a mess. Some states even require motorcyclists to wear helmets, for the same reason.

[GodlessCommie]

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

That is very easy:

The essence of conservatism is a separation of society into an in-group, protected but not bound by law; and an out-group, bound but not protected by law.

"No shirt, no service" is the in-group imposing its will on the out-group. That's right, just, and how it is supposed to be. "No mask, no service" is the out-group telling the in-group what to do. It's abhorrent in the eyes of Almighty and a revolt against the natural order of things.

[boarder42]

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

That is very easy:

The essence of conservatism is a separation of society into an in-group, protected but not bound by law; and an out-group, bound but not protected by law.

"No shirt, no service" is the in-group imposing its will on the out-group. That's right, just, and how it is supposed to be. "No mask, no service" is the out-group telling the in-group what to do. It's abhorrent in the eyes of Almighty and a revolt against the natural order of things.

Assuming out means minority and in means majority your statement is flawed.

[former player]

How do the anti-mask brigade square their opposition with private property rights?  If a shopowner wants to say "you can't come on my land unless you are wearing a mask" isn't that just the owner exercising rights over private property?  And shouldn't it be wrong for a State to legislate (eg a mask ban) which interferes with that owner exercising their rights over their private property?

In fact, a mask ban, or refusing to wear a mask when asked to on someone else's property, is practically communism come to Florida and Texas, right?

[boarder42]

How do the anti-mask brigade square their opposition with private property rights?  If a shopowner wants to say "you can't come on my land unless you are wearing a mask" isn't that just the owner exercising rights over private property?  And shouldn't it be wrong for a State to legislate (eg a mask ban) which interferes with that owner exercising their rights over their private property?

In fact, a mask ban, or refusing to wear a mask when asked to on someone else's property, is practically communism come to Florida and Texas, right?

Exactly.

Sorry but the republican party is a shell of what it once stood for and has now become the BIG govt machine they forever opposed

It's insane what has happened in my republican lead state throughout covid. Started with no regulations or rules at the state level bc republicans want to flow choice down to the lowest denominator. Now our attorney general is suing schools over mask mandates.

I mean it's like watching California burn with  how republicans are handling everything since trump was elected.

For the record the first democrat I voted for was Joe Biden. And I also voted for trump in 2016. ( Thinking he was just posturing with his statements and would be a good human in office... Ha)

[Morning Glory]

I've never heard of a mask ban, that's ridiculous. Wouldn't that interfere with religious freedom? We get many Saudi Arabian visitors in my town and some of the women wear niquab, and there's no issues.

[Dancin'Dog]

If the situation was reversed, and republicans favored masks, they'd claim that store owners had the right to shoot unmasked shoppers claiming that they "felt threatened".


Germ warfare VS the 2nd Amendment! 

[MudPuppy]

The pastor of a large local church announced that he would have anyone in the church wearing a mask removed because he was tired of playing “Democrat games” and because they believe in “freedom” and “personal choice.”  So yeah.

[OtherJen]

The pastor of a large local church announced that he would have anyone in the church wearing a mask removed because he was tired of playing “Democrat games” and because they believe in “freedom” and “personal choice.”  So yeah.

That’s the “freedom to do only what I think you should do” and the “personal choice to choose only what I think is right.”

[Imma]

Today's lecture is about personal freedom and smoking.

As we all know in 60s and 70s smoking was widely accepted and permitted nearly everywhere including hospitals, schools, buses and many more public places. But now no one even dares to think about smoking in a hospital or a school. If even 10-15 years ago there were still designated smoking areas in some stated, now they are gone. Please write a few paragraphs about personal freedom and smoking. Why smokers rights are not protected? Make sure to answer the question why is it ok now to forbid smoking in public places? Why no one questions this clear violation of personal freedom of smokers? Why landlords are allowed to write in their leases that smoking is prohibited on premises and moreover, why are they allowed to evict a tenant for violating the lease agreement by smoking on said premises? Why is it legal? Why many privately owned businesses do not allow smoking inside or even outside their buildings?

For an extra credit please write how enforcing a non smoking policy in hospitals/other public places is different from enforcing Covid vaccination policy.

For double extra credit, please also write a paragraph about why "no shoes, no shirt, no service" is acceptable, but why "no mask, no service" is not.   And why school dress codes pertaining to skirt length, tank tops, hair color, bandanas, and sagging pants are okay, but those pertaining to masks are not.

Bc there is no scientific proof that if I where pants you can't see my private areas. And that by me walking around naked how am I harming anyone. It's my choice. I have a right to go wherever I want whenever I want wearing nothing but my cigarette belt and colt 45 holster chain smoking to my heart's desire

But if you are driving in a car, you must wear a seatbelt, even though it really doesn't affect anyone else if you die in an accident, other than keeping the EMS people from tending to people having heart attacks and in general making a mess. Some states even require motorcyclists to wear helmets, for the same reason.

Actually, not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous for others too. A person not wearing a seatbelt is propelled through the vehicle and being hit with an actual human body is often fatal. Here's a brutal road safety advert showing exactly why it's dangerous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE 

When seatbelts became mandatory in my country, the Dutch Reformed Church opposed that on moral grounds too. They were refused a religious exemption, because driving is optional. You aren't banned from practicing your religion, because driving is your choice. If you object to wearing a seatbelt you can simply walk, cycle or take the bus.

Eventually, I don't think anyone in the Church sold their cars because of it. They either adapted or they just didn't wear seatbelts and accepted the fines.

[GodlessCommie]

Assuming out means minority and in means majority your statement is flawed.

It's not majority/minority. It's more related to having majority/minority of power in the good old days.

[fixie]

I read something yesterday that the discussion has already begun in some circles as to whether treatment of vaccinated people should take precedent in the demographics that have had the opportunity to do so already. I don't know how easily implementable that is, though. It would put immunocompromised people through the hassle of having to prove their status for having not gotten the vaccine.

It would also be unethical and possibly illegal.

[fixie]

Gradually boxing them into a more & more inconvenient existance, but without any specific athority or group to blame it on.

As satisfying as that would be, I’m not sure it’d actually be constructive. People and groups that feel boxed in don’t usually go “oh, I guess y’all were right after all” and then move on with their lives.

From what I read, most unvaxxed people are vaccine hesitant for various reasons anyway, rather than red hot science denialists. This majority within the minority (in most places) needs a face-saving way of deciding to take the vaccine without feeling it was bullied or forced into it. I hope the full FDA approval (which has been noted around the world, although it technically only matters in the US) can play a role in that. We don’t want to push the hesitants towards the nutters by treating them all the same.

We are out of time for patience.

So… are you saying you only trust scientific research until you run out of patience? The people studying human behaviour, and specifically resistance to getting vaccinated, aren’t talking out of their asses, you know.

Can you please clarify that?

Scientists who specifically study vaccine hesitant people stress that it’s important not to lump hard core antivaxxers and merely vaccine hesitant people together. That only pushes people further into ideological corners, instead of actually getting any more arms jabbed. It’s not about being patient, it’s about being smart, and considering which things are keeping the hesitant people from going ahead and getting vaccinated. There will be a lot of different ones, so the solution is neither simple nor any one thing.

Scolding unvaccinated people may feel good in the moment, but it’s not going to get you where you want to get.

Edit: To further clarify, there are certainly hopeless nutters out there who will stay in their YouTube universe and never trust science. But what behavioural science tells us is that there are far, far fewer of them (but they are loud!) than there are other as yet unvaccinated people. It’s this latter group that will make all the difference in terms of numbers, and who are not hopeless cases. Treating them as such doesn’t help the overall goal (or anything else, either).

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

[GodlessCommie]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

[OtherJen]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

Let's also stop the claims that masks cut off oxygen supply and that vaccination with an mRNA-based vax causes you to shed live virus.

[Sibley]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

[fixie]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

Absolutely...

Let's also stop the claims that masks cut off oxygen supply and that vaccination with an mRNA-based vax causes you to shed live virus.

[fixie]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

[Kris]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

[fixie]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

[Kris]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

[Morning Glory]

"improper administration (ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle)"

Not an issue: We no longer teach aspiration of the needle for IM injections in the upper arm, as it increases pain and the risk of hitting a blood vessel is pretty much nonexistent. The most common administration error with vaccines is choosing too short of a needle for a larger person, leading to reduced efficacy because the vaccine goes into subcutaneous fat instead of muscle.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/administration.html

I'm pretty sure prion diseases and most of those other things are not an issue either.

[MudPuppy]

I can’t even begin to tell you how much of a red herring or simply a nonissue most of those things are, @fixie

[Kris]

I can’t even begin to tell you how much of a red herring or simply a nonissue most of those things are, @fixie

And that is the point of the Gish gallop.

[jrhampt]

I can’t even begin to tell you how much of a red herring or simply a nonissue most of those things are, @fixie

Yep.  Relative risk of getting a bad case of covid is what I'm more concerned about.  Or I was, before I got vaccinated.

[MudPuppy]

I can’t even begin to tell you how much of a red herring or simply a nonissue most of those things are, @fixie

And that is the point of the Gish gallop.

Fair!

[Sibley]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

You are forgetting one critical fact.

Risk of vaccine = x

Risk of covid = x + 1000

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid.

[fixie]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

You are forgetting one critical fact.

Risk of vaccine = x

Risk of covid = x + 1000

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid.

That's simply ridiculous math there.  Risk calculations are much more complicated and nuanced.  Each person's risk calculation is different.  This should be obvious by now.  There is real risk to taking the vaccination, as shown in the VAERS data.  Doubles the risk of hospitalization from what number?  An estimated 180 million merkans have had the disease and the vast, vast majority of them were not hospitalized.  Thankfully, I have natural immunity, which is arguably better and more durable than yours. 
I'm not against vaccinations.  There are perfectly sensible populations that SHOULD get this jab.  I have virtually every other vaccination available and necessary.  I'm against "emergency mandates" that lead people to lose the ability to support themselves or family or make personal health decisions for themselves.  The potential risks I listed are very real and part of my personal calculation.

"Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid."  Good thing you are not a medical provider.

[fixie]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Horsepucky.  Those are real risks, some of which have occurred in enough frequency to be a real signal in the VAERS data and "yellow cards" at the NHS in Britain.  Note, I was careful to put qualifiers there where the risk is there but, as yet, there is no data.
PEG is listed as a possible adjuvant in the vaccines.
Bells palsy has been happening in plenty of patients.
ADE is a real risk and has happened numerous times in both human and veterinary vaccines.
Vaccinations driving selection is a real risk and should be obvious to anyone with basic biology.

I was asked about long term safety issues.  I listed them.

[EvenSteven]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

You are forgetting one critical fact.

Risk of vaccine = x

Risk of covid = x + 1000

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid.

That's simply ridiculous math there.  Risk calculations are much more complicated and nuanced.  Each person's risk calculation is different.  This should be obvious by now.  There is real risk to taking the vaccination, as shown in the VAERS data.  Doubles the risk of hospitalization from what number?  An estimated 180 million merkans have had the disease and the vast, vast majority of them were not hospitalized.  Thankfully, I have natural immunity, which is arguably better and more durable than yours. 
I'm not against vaccinations.  There are perfectly sensible populations that SHOULD get this jab.  I have virtually every other vaccination available and necessary.  I'm against "emergency mandates" that lead people to lose the ability to support themselves or family or make personal health decisions for themselves.  The potential risks I listed are very real and part of my personal calculation.

"Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid."  Good thing you are not a medical provider.

What ever risk you perceive with the vaccine, VAERS data does not show risk of vaccines, because that is not what VAERS data can do.

[Kris]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Horsepucky.  Those are real risks, some of which have occurred in enough frequency to be a real signal in the VAERS data and "yellow cards" at the NHS in Britain.  Note, I was careful to put qualifiers there where the risk is there but, as yet, there is no data.
PEG is listed as a possible adjuvant in the vaccines.
Bells palsy has been happening in plenty of patients.
ADE is a real risk and has happened numerous times in both human and veterinary vaccines.
Vaccinations driving selection is a real risk and should be obvious to anyone with basic biology.

I was asked about long term safety issues.  I listed them.

Of course, you are going to ignore all of the actual medical professionals on here who are refuting your "list."

"Bells palsy has been happening in plenty of patients."

I'll take this one on, because it is a particularly vague and leading claim that is easily refutable.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2781368

"The present analysis found a higher incidence of BP in patients with COVID-19 (0.08%). This translates to approximately 82 per 100 000 patients with COVID-19. The rate of recurrent BP in patients with previous BP at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis was 8.6%. This analysis found a statistically significant higher risk of BP in patients with COVID-19 compared with those who were vaccinated against the disease. The data suggest that rates of BP are higher in patients with COVID-19, and this incidence exceeds the reported incidence of BP in those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine."

Dude, Bell's Palsy occurs in higher rates in patients with COVID-19 than it does in vaccinated people. And also:

The annual incidence of BP is 15 to 30 per 100 000 people.

Two phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials consisting of 73 868 participants (36 930 receiving vaccine) reported 8 cases of BP.5,6 Seven cases were in the vaccine groups, which translates to an incidence of 19 per 100 000. In other words, the number of cases of BP in the vaccine group is consistent with the number of people per 100,000 who just get Bell's Palsy per year.

The incidence of BP in patients with COVID-19 in the trial translates to approximately 82 per 100 000 patients with COVID-19.

So, what seems to actually increase Bell's Palsy is GETTING COVID-19. Not the vaccine.

Seriously. Gish. Gallop.

[GodlessCommie]

Regardless of the type of the fallacy used, my biggest gripe with @fixie's line of argument is that it assigns 100% of the blame to people who do 95% of things right, and 0% blame to people who do 95% wrong.

Like, I don't know, forcing a vaccination site to close. Not just refusing vaccines for themselves - preventing others from getting vaccines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/01/georgia-vaccination-site-shuts-down/

[Davnasty]

That's simply ridiculous math there.  Risk calculations are much more complicated and nuanced.  Each person's risk calculation is different.  This should be obvious by now.  There is real risk to taking the vaccination, as shown in the VAERS data.  Doubles the risk of hospitalization from what number?  An estimated 180 million merkans have had the disease and the vast, vast majority of them were not hospitalized.  Thankfully, I have natural immunity, which is arguably better and more durable than yours. 
I'm not against vaccinations.  There are perfectly sensible populations that SHOULD get this jab.  I have virtually every other vaccination available and necessary.  I'm against "emergency mandates" that lead people to lose the ability to support themselves or family or make personal health decisions for themselves.  The potential risks I listed are very real and part of my personal calculation.

"Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid."  Good thing you are not a medical provider.

What ever risk you perceive with the vaccine, VAERS data does not show risk of vaccines, because that is not what VAERS data can do.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/08/how-a-once-obscure-government-database-turned-into-a-weapon-for-anti-vaxxers/

Well that's interesting

ETA: I shared this because I think the article is relevant and interesting, I'm not accusing fixie of being anti-vax as the title might suggest. I think your concern seems genuine and you're trying to think for yourself rather than blindly trusting one "side" or the other. Unfortunately I think you've missed the mark on your list of concerns, at least the ones I've taken a few minutes to look into.

[Captain FIRE]

I'm not against vaccinations.  There are perfectly sensible populations that SHOULD get this jab.  I have virtually every other vaccination available and necessary. 

I am curious.  What made you decide to get other vaccines?  How much research on them did you do prior to getting them?

You agree some populations should get the vaccine.  What about the fact that the vaccine will mutate and spread in the unvaccinated - do you feel it's a case of everyone out for themselves or do you feel those who can get vaccinated should be encouraged to do so (but not required) to stop the mutations, considering there are many who cannot (kids/immune compromised)?  If so, what are acceptable forms of encouragement to you?

If you believe people should have the right to choose to wear a mask or get vaccinated, can you explain why a business owner shouldn't also have the right to make decisions about who it will employ (e.g. vaccinated only) or accept for a customer (e.g. masked individuals), absent discrimination against a protected class? 

[maisymouser]

Nobody should just "trust science."  Anyone that says such things doesn't understand how science works or the questions science can answer.  Much as people here would like it to be so, the answer to herd immunity or ending the pandemic is not just to jab everything that moves.  If you think even 100% vaccination will end the pandemic, even if that were possible, you are horribly misled. 

There should be allowances for those that have had the disease.  Recent evidence indicates robust immunity past 8 months(probably longer but that is where the study ended).  That's much better than any available vaccine.  There should be allowances for those that cannot get the V because of allergic/other reactions to their first jab or other medical reasons and, there should be allowances for sincerely held religious or philosophical beliefs.  I'm not a religionist, but I am not willing to throw out important constitutional protections to satisfy a moving target such as "herd immunity."  To do so would be un-American.

The single-antigen vaccines are putting the virus under intense selection pressure to work around our interventions(leaky, imperfect vaccines and variable immunity during intense community spread).  There is also the possibility of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and the development of newer, more dangerous variants.  Our health care authorities, Fauci, NIH, have completely screwed the pooch from the get go with their clumsy messaging, crappy implementation, and shoddy science.

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

-fixie

But I do trust science. Because part of the scientific process is revising and correcting and improving. Maybe science doesn't get it right all the time, but given more time and research they'll get closer and closer to right. That doesn't mean I don't take a look at something and do my best to evaluate how good it is, because I recognize that it's not perfect. But I do trust it.

100% vaccination isn't possible. There will always be the people who CAN'T get vaccinated, or the people who get vaccinated but their immune systems don't respond appropriately. That is no reason why we shouldn't try to get as close to 100% as we can - because even if it isn't perfect it is better. Plenty of diseases used to be endemic which no longer are: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. I can't say that I've heard of many polio outbreaks in the US in the past 30 years. There have been measles outbreaks because of people refusing to be vaccinated, and polio breaks out in some parts of the world because it's part of the environment and they don't have the vaccination rates to stop it. I'm sure there's others that I'm not remembering. These are the exception rather than the norm though, BECAUSE of vaccination. Thus, it is entirely possible that if we can achieve high enough vaccination rates for COVID for long enough that we could actually get it out of the endemic state. My understanding is that Delta is approaching measles in how contagious it is. Measles requires a 95% vaccination rate for herd immunity to work I believe. Thus, we probably need at least 90% vaccination to really get COVID under control. We're not there yet.

No argument that we need to promote better overall health. May I remind you that Michelle Obama tried to do that exactly that and there's a ton of people who hate her guts for it? And it didn't work anyway.

Yep.  Most of us are alive and healthy-ish because of effective vaccinations in our forebears.  Vaccines are probably one of the most important inventions we have ever created.  If we can get R0 below 1, then we are winning the battle, but that is impossible with the current strategies, crappy rollout, poor communication, and unavailability to most of humanity.

I still have deep reservations on these particular novel vaccines and hope to Jah they do not have long-term, unforeseen effects.  Anyone who is using the word "safe" is being disingenuous on long term safety.

What would make you believe there could be long-term safety issues?

Manufacturing problems, allergic reactions(which increase in severity in subsequent jabs), contaminants due to rapid rollout or improper storage, improper administration(ie. hitting a blood vessel and not aspirating the needle), Autoimmune disorders, Antibody Dependent Enhancement(as far as I know not seen yet with current vaccines), prion disease(speculative), bells palsy, chronic inflammation, presence of lipid nanoparticle in various organs and bone marrow, use of various chemical adjuvants to increase potency of vaccines, novelty of both the mRNA technology in humans as well as the lipid nanoparticle, clotting disorders, polyethylene glycol as an adjuvant.
Only time will tell, and lack of liability on the part of vaccine producers means you will have no recourse should you become ill...even if you could prove causation.  How "informed" were you when you took the jab and signed away your right to sue?  Check the VAERS system for the positive signal of adverse events from COVID vaccines.
-fixie

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

You are forgetting one critical fact.

Risk of vaccine = x

Risk of covid = x + 1000

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/among-the-unvaccinated-delta-variant-more-than-doubles-risk-of-hospitalization/

Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid.

That's simply ridiculous math there.  Risk calculations are much more complicated and nuanced.  Each person's risk calculation is different.  This should be obvious by now.  There is real risk to taking the vaccination, as shown in the VAERS data.  Doubles the risk of hospitalization from what number?  An estimated 180 million merkans have had the disease and the vast, vast majority of them were not hospitalized.  Thankfully, I have natural immunity, which is arguably better and more durable than yours. 
I'm not against vaccinations.  There are perfectly sensible populations that SHOULD get this jab.  I have virtually every other vaccination available and necessary.  I'm against "emergency mandates" that lead people to lose the ability to support themselves or family or make personal health decisions for themselves.  The potential risks I listed are very real and part of my personal calculation.

"Get vaccinated. Or don't get medical treatment when you get covid."  Good thing you are not a medical provider.

Thing is, fixie, that there are plenty of people who could lose the ability to support themselves/family if they have to go into a work environment that spreads COVID to them and/or their family members. Let's say my mom, who works at an elementary school where 95%+ of people are choosing not to wear masks and you know that those kids under 12 aren't vaxxed- let's say she gets COVID and can't go into work for 2 weeks to quarantine (unpaid) and then she spreads it to my high-risk dad who is vaccinated but has an immune disorder that increases his risk of hospitalization. And because of our sh!t healthcare system and low pay for teachers, she is paying thousands and thousands out of pocket for potentially multiple years to cope. Sure, she can work, but this situation would compromise her true potential to support our family.

I don't really feel like you're considering the other side of your argument. The other side is this: COVID itself is already creating situations like this en masse. COVID transmission at workplaces is increasing the likelihood of people not being able to make safe personal decisions, for themselves, for their families. It's just as unethical to me to not protect workers to the best ability we can.

Also, jobs in the US are at-will. On both sides. We've decided that's the way we want things. So we shouldn't be complaining when companies decide how they want to run things, or when they require vaccines for their employees. It's perfectly within their legal rights.

[Laserjet3051]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

Let's also stop the claims that masks cut off oxygen supply and that vaccination with an mRNA-based vax causes you to shed live virus.

I cant remember if you were a scientist or not but if you are you should know better. As I have stated previously, I conduct preclinical studies with mRNA- and viral-based therapeutics where one of the primary safety metrics we examine is viral shedding. We examine tears, nasal discharge, urine, feces, semen and vaginal discharge for mRNA or viral content. Molecular testing clearly show the capacity for both classes of agents to be shed with variable pharmacokinetic profiles. Since my work is preclinical, I cannot comment specifically on human shedding, but preclinical studies I direct evdence this to be the case for all mRNA/viral therapeutics I have evaluated to date.

[MudPuppy]

There’s no virus in the vaccine. Why are you like this.

[OtherJen]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

Let's also stop the claims that masks cut off oxygen supply and that vaccination with an mRNA-based vax causes you to shed live virus.

I cant remember if you were a scientist or not but if you are you should know better. As I have stated previously, I conduct preclinical studies with mRNA- and viral-based therapeutics where one of the primary safety metrics we examine is viral shedding. We examine tears, nasal discharge, urine, feces, semen and vaginal discharge for mRNA or viral content. Molecular testing clearly show the capacity for both classes of agents to be shed with variable pharmacokinetic profiles. Since my work is preclinical, I cannot comment specifically on human shedding, but preclinical studies I direct evdence this to be the case for all mRNA/viral therapeutics I have evaluated to date.

I have a bachelor's in biochemistry, a PhD in immunology, and worked in immunology research for more than a decade. In my research, I worked extensively with DNA, mRNA, and proteins at the subcellular to the whole-organism level. An mRNA molecule only contains the information required to encode the amino acid chain (i.e. oligopeptide) that becomes the full protein after it is processed in the endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi, etc. In the case of the COVID vaccines, the mRNA encodes the spike protein. It is not the full viral genome and, therefore, it is not possible for the mRNA vaccines to produce a full virus.

I'd recommend brushing up on basic genetics—transcription, translation, nucleic acids—before insulting other people with expertise in the field for stating facts.

[ender]

How do the anti-mask brigade square their opposition with private property rights?  If a shopowner wants to say "you can't come on my land unless you are wearing a mask" isn't that just the owner exercising rights over private property?  And shouldn't it be wrong for a State to legislate (eg a mask ban) which interferes with that owner exercising their rights over their private property?

In fact, a mask ban, or refusing to wear a mask when asked to on someone else's property, is practically communism come to Florida and Texas, right?

This is by far the most ironic aspect to all the anti-maskers agendas.

It's so hypocritical.

I have extended family who are massively against mask mandates because of government overreach. And equally against private companies having vaccine or mask mandates.

So... which is it? It really is "I want to do what I want with no consequences and no intellectual consistency in my beliefs"ism.

Honestly, I'd find a lot more of the anti-mask/vaccine mandate folks perspectives more supportable if they were equally as supportive of companies having mask/vaccine requirements because it'd at least show consistency.

But I've yet to meet anyone who has anything other than hypocritical beliefs on the topic.

It's just like Republicans lamenting how Facebook/Twitter "deplatform" them while they argue that bakeries shouldn't have to make cakes for gay weddings.

[EvenSteven]

We need better science, and better science education.  We need to promote better overall health.  Most of our fellow citizens who are hospitalized and in real danger have numerous preventable comorbidities.  We need to stop shaming and fear-mongering.  The virus is endemic now, and we need to act accordingly.

I'm all for stopping shaming and fear-mongering. Let's start with stopping the claims that wearing masks and standing 6' apart is a Satanic ritual. Disgusting fear-mongering, if you ask me.

Let's also stop the claims that masks cut off oxygen supply and that vaccination with an mRNA-based vax causes you to shed live virus.

I cant remember if you were a scientist or not but if you are you should know better. As I have stated previously, I conduct preclinical studies with mRNA- and viral-based therapeutics where one of the primary safety metrics we examine is viral shedding. We examine tears, nasal discharge, urine, feces, semen and vaginal discharge for mRNA or viral content. Molecular testing clearly show the capacity for both classes of agents to be shed with variable pharmacokinetic profiles. Since my work is preclinical, I cannot comment specifically on human shedding, but preclinical studies I direct evdence this to be the case for all mRNA/viral therapeutics I have evaluated to date.

I have a bachelor's in biochemistry, a PhD in immunology, and worked in immunology research for more than a decade. In my research, I worked extensively with DNA, mRNA, and proteins at the subcellular to the whole-organism level. An mRNA molecule only contains the information required to encode the amino acid chain (i.e. oligopeptide) that becomes the full protein after it is processed in the endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi, etc. In the case of the COVID vaccines, the mRNA encodes the spike protein. It is not the full viral genome and, therefore, it is not possible for the mRNA vaccines to produce a full virus.

I'd recommend brushing up on basic genetics—transcription, translation, nucleic acids—before insulting other people with expertise in the field for stating facts.

This is bio 101, or maybe the first year of genetics type of stuff, definitely something a medical professional like Laserjet should know. I can't figure out if they are displaying the kind of brain rot required to become an anti-vax covid denier, or if they intentionally spreading disinformation for some reason.

[MudPuppy]

It’s both, based on their post history