What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will you get a Covid vaccine when available? (1 Viewer)

Will you get a Covid vaccine when available?

  • Yes, as soon as it comes out

    Votes: 236 55.4%
  • Yes, but not for a while until some time passes

    Votes: 93 21.8%
  • No, I don't think it will be safe

    Votes: 19 4.5%
  • No, I don't think it will be effective

    Votes: 5 1.2%
  • No, I already had Covid

    Votes: 13 3.1%
  • Unsure, but leaning yes

    Votes: 32 7.5%
  • Unsure, but leaning no

    Votes: 28 6.6%

  • Total voters
    426
Probably already posted here but it looks like there are some positive results fr Hong Kong.  I realize these doctors probably aren't as sophisticated as the medical experts / Nigerian email scammers reporting the infertility, so take it fwiw.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.663586/full

I don't own any stock in ivermectin BTW.  I'm just suspicious of the coordinated hit job on this stuff, and the fake news surrounding it.  Like the Rolling Stone article about overdoses, that was easily fact checked by calling the hospital.  Then the fake news just gets regurgitated by the talking heads like Maddow.  Doesn't anyone else wonder why there is so much fake news surrounding this stuff?
It's not a "coordinated hit job". There is no conspiracy.

There are multiple peer reviewed studies that show no benefit to it.  If a medicine works, then it will be used.  Dexamethasone is dirt cheap compared to most of these other treatments, has been around for a long time and has use to treat a variety of illnesses.  It has been shown to work for Covid so it is used.  If there were any legitimate studies showing efficacy for ivermectin in the treatment of Covid (and not in vitro efficacy), then it would be considered. 

Information in the medical community isn't suppressed.  You'll do yourself a favor to stop looking at this as some sort of conspiracy which is hinted by your use of words above.  There is no conspiracy. 

 
It's not a "coordinated hit job". There is no conspiracy.

There are multiple peer reviewed studies that show no benefit to it.  If a medicine works, then it will be used.  Dexamethasone is dirt cheap compared to most of these other treatments, has been around for a long time and has use to treat a variety of illnesses.  It has been shown to work for Covid so it is used.  If there were any legitimate studies showing efficacy for ivermectin in the treatment of Covid (and not in vitro efficacy), then it would be considered. 

Information in the medical community isn't suppressed.  You'll do yourself a favor to stop looking at this as some sort of conspiracy which is hinted by your use of words above.  There is no conspiracy. 


Why is rolling stone and maddow reporting fake news about hospitals overloaded with people overdosing on ivermectin?  Why is CNN saying Joe Rogan took horse dewormer?

 
"Clinical trials evaluating whether Ivermectin tablets can be used to treat COVID-19 are ongoing"

Why are they even performing clinical trials on whether it can be used to treat covid if it's a consensus by scientists and experts that it doesn't work?  
 I had posted this in the covid thread, but it addresses your question:

good read on treatments, with a new (well, back in the spotlight... there were some earlier small trials) possible one, fluvoxamine (brand name Luvox). It also mentions Ivm, Hcq, metformin, etc.:

https://www.wired.com/story/better-data-on-ivermectin-is-finally-on-its-way/

and a money quote, relative to our discussions here in the last few days:

Mills says he and his colleagues have been abused and threatened by ivermectin adherents; the trial designers even went through the rigorous process of changing the dosage administered to comport better to the fans’ preferred regimen of three days instead of just one. “We tested, what, seven other drugs? Nobody abuses us about the other drugs. We even showed one of them worked,” Mills tells me. His team touted positive results for fluvoxamine, “and that crowd doesn’t seem to care. If you ask them, ‘Why do you feel so strongly about ivermectin?’ they will say, ‘Because we feel there should be a cheap, effective drug that can be used by poor people.’ OK, well, we have that. We have it with fluvoxamine, and with inhaled budesonide. Why do they not care about those drugs? They don’t have an answer. They just want to talk about ivermectin.”  

and

Why do another trial at all if the evidence for ivermectin’s usefulness is collapsing? Well, for one thing, the researchers started planning it before the collapse began. It takes a while for a big trial to change course. Methodologically and bureaucratically, a lot of groups have to sign off, and researchers and administrators have been planning Activ-6 for months—since the days when ivermectin looked like a better bet. “Based on the existing data, particularly the Together trial, there is not any evidence that ivermectin has any role in the outpatient realm,” says David Boulware, an infectious disease physician and researcher at the University of Minnesota who is cochair of the Activ-6 steering committee. “There’s no data on clinical benefit. Does it prevent hospitalization or ER visits? Does it reduce severity or duration of symptoms? When you put the data together, there’s nothing conclusive. The point of Activ-6 is: Let’s get a definitive answer, because people are using it.”

 
Why is rolling stone and maddow reporting fake news about hospitals overloaded with people overdosing on ivermectin?  Why is CNN saying Joe Rogan took horse dewormer?
Why do you try and get your news from Rolling Stone or Maddow?  Why do you take medical advice from the media?

I don't watch the news or care much about their reporting.  If I'm going to read stuff, I try to get it from unbiased sources like Reuters or AP and typically go straight to the source on top of that.

You're confusing poor media reporting with some kind of huge medical conspiracy.  Two separate items. 

 
what about it? That seems to be not a study but a summary of some other small sample size studies, unless I am missing something. 

They do say they near the end that they completed a trial of their own but it is "under review" and they don't give any details other than:

That said, in a recent clinical trial that we have just concluded and is under review, we show that a single dose of IVM can significantly reduce the viral load in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects. However, in these subjects, zinc and vitamin C were concomitantly used.

The available data thus far suggests a favorable outcome when using IVM in specific doses and in particular drug combinations.

Read the last couple pages of the Covid thread. There have been several good links posted about ivermectin studies, etc. 

 
We've said this a few times in here.

1)  A single study does not represent evidence to change practice.  Especially with multiple studies showing the opposite.

2)  Not every study is created equal.  The design and quality of a study matters.  This paper you are quoting is a low quality review.

3)  Directly from the study you quoted:  Notably, the clinical outcomes upon prescribing IVM on its own did not result in significantly improved outcomes for COVID-19 patients and nor should it be particularly encouraged (54).

4)  In vitro effectiveness is very different from in vivo effectiveness. 

My question to you is this:  Do you have the expertise to read, evaluate, and properly critique the study you are quoting?  Assuming you don't (much like the vast majority of the population), then trust those that do.  These studies don't get ignored.  If there's something there, it will be checked and if there's benefit discovered, it will be used.

 
Why do you try and get your news from Rolling Stone or Maddow?  Why do you take medical advice from the media?

I don't watch the news or care much about their reporting.  If I'm going to read stuff, I try to get it from unbiased sources like Reuters or AP and typically go straight to the source on top of that.

You're confusing poor media reporting with some kind of huge medical conspiracy.  Two separate items. 
I don't, but there are quite a few people that follow Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow that probably aren't too smart.  These are the people I worry about.

 
Notably, the clinical outcomes upon prescribing IVM on its own did not result in significantly improved outcomes for COVID-19 patients and nor should it be particularly encouraged (54).

My question to you is this:  Do you have the expertise to read, evaluate, and properly critique the study you are quoting?  Assuming you don't (much like the vast majority of the population), then trust those that do.  These studies don't get ignored.  If there's something there, it will be checked and if there's benefit discovered, it will be used.
I don't know much about the protocol, but I'm pretty sure taking it alone has never been recommended.  It has always been with zinc from what I recall.  Maybe vitamin C?  

I have 0 expertise I'm this, and I'm not recommending taking it.  I just think everyone here has blinders on to the realities of the rest of the globe.  If you were in some remote village of India I wouldn't blame you for taking it.  The last thing I would do is call you an idiot that takes horse paste.  

 
I don't, but there are quite a few people that follow Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow that probably aren't too smart.  These are the people I worry about.
Let's not get this political.  The same could be said about other news sources from the other side.  You should worry about those people too if you're going to worry about the above.  But again, that's a separate issue.

You don't pull up the news to get advice about which antibiotic you take or whether or not to have your gall bladder taken out.  So stop looking at CNN or Rolling Stone to decide if Ivermectin should be used by your doctor to treat you for Covid if you land yourself in the hospital. 

Talk to your doctor if you have questions about this stuff.  Get your vaccine as is recommended universally.  And follow your local health authorities and their guidelines. 

The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy against ivermectin.  That's where this back and forth originated.  I'm not interested in going down this rabbit hole of what's being reported and people to worry about any more.  Follow the evidence and the science.  If you're not able to do that on your own, which most can't and shouldn't, then listen to those that do.  That would be your doctor and the others I listed above.

 
The vaccines are not perfect, and it seems a slew of people equate that to being worthless.

As the lady in the video a few posts ago mentioned, the vaccines were enormously useful against the Covid strain they were built for.  Well, that strain is still out there.

The vaccines have been proven less effective against the variants.  LESS effective, not INeffective.

Lastly the argument between using a vaccine vs ivermectin makes zero sense.   If you are the biggest ivermectin honk in the world you should still have the logical capability to realize that you should still get the vaccine.  If you happen to catch a case of Covid and actually get sick, then go ahead and slam some ivermectin if you want.

 
The vaccines are not perfect, and it seems a slew of people equate that to being worthless.

As the lady in the video a few posts ago mentioned, the vaccines were enormously useful against the Covid strain they were built for.  Well, that strain is still out there.

The vaccines have been proven less effective against the variants.  LESS effective, not INeffective.

Lastly the argument between using a vaccine vs ivermectin makes zero sense.   If you are the biggest ivermectin honk in the world you should still have the logical capability to realize that you should still get the vaccine.  If you happen to catch a case of Covid and actually get sick, then go ahead and slam some ivermectin if you want.
And per the bold, LESS effective but still MASSIVELY effective against Delta.

 
Let's not get this political.  The same could be said about other news sources from the other side.  You should worry about those people too if you're going to worry about the above.  But again, that's a separate issue.

You don't pull up the news to get advice about which antibiotic you take or whether or not to have your gall bladder taken out.  So stop looking at CNN or Rolling Stone to decide if Ivermectin should be used by your doctor to treat you for Covid if you land yourself in the hospital. 

Talk to your doctor if you have questions about this stuff.  Get your vaccine as is recommended universally.  And follow your local health authorities and their guidelines. 

The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy against ivermectin.  That's where this back and forth originated.  I'm not interested in going down this rabbit hole of what's being reported and people to worry about any more.  Follow the evidence and the science.  If you're not able to do that on your own, which most can't and shouldn't, then listen to those that do.  That would be your doctor and the others I listed above.
I'm not making it political, and am a fan of rolling stone.  I follow Maddow, but don't tune in every night.  I don't think there is a "conspiracy against ivermectin" it's more of a piggyback media just trying to get clicks.   They all just happen to be repeating blatantly false narrative about Joe Rogan taking horse paste.  I'm not supporting ivermectin use, but I don't blame people in other regions of the world that don't have access to vaccines for trying alternative treatments.

 
This seems like it fits here....

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies.

They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.

The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.

They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Jean-Paul Sartre, 1944

 
I'm not making it political, and am a fan of rolling stone.  I follow Maddow, but don't tune in every night.  I don't think there is a "conspiracy against ivermectin" it's more of a piggyback media just trying to get clicks.   They all just happen to be repeating blatantly false narrative about Joe Rogan taking horse paste.  I'm not supporting ivermectin use, but I don't blame people in other regions of the world that don't have access to vaccines for trying alternative treatments.
you need some other sources.  ALL news, down to the mayberry gazette, is trying to do two things.  make money.  and they want you to tune in tomorrow, buy the next daily rag. etc.  sensationalism is real, across all platforms.

i don't watch the news much.  i don't care for joe rogan. however,  i watched his video.  he said he took ivermectin.  he's really really rich.  i assume he has expensive, and most likely, pretty competent drs.  not quacks that believe in alien semen/dna.  it's pretty unlikely that the ivermectin he took, came from the farm and seed store.  but that doesn't make a good story.  horse paste it is!!  the rubes, eat that #### up.  

it's common sense.  however, "common sense, is not so common"  voltaire

 
UPDATE : VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS
Massive new study of Vaccine vs Delta 

METHOD: 
32,867 patients from 187 hospitals and 221 emergency departments across nine states during June–August 2021 (beginning on the date the Delta variant accounted for >50% of sequenced isolates in each state) 

SUMMARY- EFFECTIVENESS VS HOSPITALIZATION:

Overall (Over 75yo): 76%
Overall (under 75yo): 89%
Moderna (all ages): 95%
Pfizer (all ages): 80%
J&J (all ages): 60% 

CLIFFS NOTES: mRNA Vaccines are still REALLLLLLY ####in good at stopping you from getting very sick with COVID. Also, mRNA vaccines (Moderna & Pfizer) are much better than old tech vaccines (J&J). 

LINK TO PAPER: 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf

Also recent study in Singapore showed vaxxed folks with breakthrough infections: 
- clear the virus much faster  (stop spreading / get better)
- are significantly less likely to have "Long COVID" (lingering long term damage/symptoms)
- 3x more likely to be completely asymptomatic

LINK TO PAPER: 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full-text

 
The "news" outlets put on tv what will get eyes to watch. This isnt a secret and is pretty straight forward
And they call ivermectin "animal dewormer" because that's one of the more popular things it treats.  Kinda like why we call Tylenol/Advil "headache medicine".  

 
Interesting. Maybe in 30 years, COVID vaccines will be one of the run-of-the-mill childhood vaccines and will also be piggy-backed with the flu shot for adults. And Americans of the 2050s, with their 95+% COVID vaccination rate, will wonder what all the fuss was about.
In my totally uneducated opinion, this seems like the most likely long-term outcome.

 
I kind of feel seat belt laws did go this way 

Eta:

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance
I'd still feel the same way today.  Seat belts are good.  Manufacturers should be required to include them in cars.  People are dumb for not wearing them but above the age of 18 I wouldn't make them.

That said, I don't think seat belts is a good comparison for covid vaccine.  I'm not sure you wearing a seat belt increases the risk of someone else being harmed in car accident or makes it more likely roads are closed (because there are so many non seat belt wearing people causing accidents that road access has to be restricted).  And of course wearing a seat belt doesn't carry any risk unless not looking cool is considered risky.

I saw in the history.com piece that there was reference to "oh first its seatbelts and next it will be cigarettes" as an example where the fallout from seatbelt laws was being overblown....but why not cigarettes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. Maybe in 30 years, COVID vaccines will be one of the run-of-the-mill childhood vaccines and will also be piggy-backed with the flu shot for adults. And Americans of the 2050s, with their 95+% COVID vaccination rate, will wonder what all the fuss was about.
The other 5%: "Yeah, but what about the really long term side effects?"

 
I'd still feel the same way today.  Seat belts are good.  Manufacturers should be required to include them in cars.  People are dumb for not wearing them but above the age of 18 I wouldn't make them.

That said, I don't think seat belts is a good comparison for covid vaccine.  I'm not sure you wearing a seat belt increases the risk of someone else being harmed in car accident or makes it more likely roads are closed (because there are so many non seat belt wearing people causing accidents that road access has to be restricted).  And of course wearing a seat belt doesn't carry any risk unless not looking cool is considered risky.

I saw in the history.com piece that there was reference to "oh first its seatbelts and next it will be cigarettes" as an example where the fallout from seatbelt laws was being overblown....but why not cigarettes?
I wasn't comparing the 2. Simply pointing out how what gianmarco posted kind of played out like the picture already

 
This guy is a dangerous quack. You really should stop posting dangerous misinformation, and if you won't @FBG Moderator should ban you.

Here's your guy:


The above 'dont' was directed at me. I hope you gave him the same timeout I got. Did you? 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

As my last post in this topic, I leave this and you (fish) cannot explain it except for one thing. IVERMECTIN.

Ask yourself how this is possible in a province (Utter Pradesh) in a country that had only 3.6% 2x jabbed on June 20th, while on the same date, cases had plummeted to around 200/day. based on the number of cases the weeks before, India should have exploded.

244 MILLION people. The USA has 330 million people, with way more people 2x jabbed RIGHT NOW and we are pumping out 150K cases a day RIGHT NOW.

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/uttar-pradesh-districts-covid-free-cases-deaths-1847365-2021-08-31

https://newsrescue.com/the-undeniable-ivermectin-miracle-indias-240m-populated-largest-state-uttar-pradesh-horowitz/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

The answer is that Utter Pradesh along with some other provinces started giving everyone Ivermectin. The provinces that DID NOT, the cases stayed up. That is a FACT.

You can deny it all you want but the data from those using Ivermectin shows 100% that it works. IT IS UNDENIABLE. There is ZERO disinformation in my posts. Z-E-R-O. 

Now assume this post doesn't get deleted.:

I was 100% correct that this virus came out of the wuhan lab as many here were buying the bat BS. Watch what happens later this year/early next year. Pfizer will come out with a very expensive pill that you take at the onset of covid (theirs is actually twice a day, of course) while the Japanese company is working on a single pill as are other drug companies. Kinda like, yeah, ivermectin...as a treatment. I just wonder what it will be made of. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderna vs Pfizer: Is there a difference?   by Katelyn Jetelina

Subtle Differences

Throughout the pandemic, I’ve always lumped Moderna and Pfizer together. For example, if there was evidence that Pfizer worked against a variant, then Moderna surely worked too. The two mRNA vaccines are incredibly similar, but they’re not identical. There are a few subtle differences between the two:

The formulation: The fat bubbles that carry the mRNA are a bit different. In the Figure below, you can see that A (Pfizer) has a slightly different pattern than B (Moderna);

The dose of RNA is different: Moderna has a much higher dose (100 mcg) compared to Pfizer (30 mcg);

Different vaccine schedule: Moderna doses are 4 weeks apart, while Pfizer doses are 3 weeks apart;

Pfizer was approved in the United States (and around the world) a few weeks (or months) prior to Moderna.

At first, these small differences didn’t impact vaccine effectiveness. Both were extremely great at protecting against asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe disease.
But the story might be changing

Last month, the Mayo Clinic released a preprint of a very large study of 645,109 patients followed after vaccination (January - July 2021). The scientists wanted to describe breakthrough rates among vaccinated with Moderna, vaccinated with Pfizer, and unvaccinated. How were the vaccines holding up?

Both vaccines continued to work great against hospitalization, ICU admission, and death (there were no deaths in the study). This was the case in January 2021 and this was the case in July 2021. This didn’t changed.

Effectiveness against any infection (so mild to moderate disease), though, was lower for both vaccines in July (76% effectiveness) compared to January (86% effectiveness)

Interestingly, Pfizer’s effectiveness decreased faster over time (i.e. more breakthrough cases) compared to patients vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine (i.e. less breakthrough cases).

Nonetheless, both vaccines were much better at preventing infections compared to no vaccine (unvaccinated patients).

 
From the same epidemiologist as above....some info for the J & J vaccinated folks

J&J folks:  This is what we know

There are 14.6 million people in the United States left in the dark about their Johnson and Johnson (J&J) shot. Does it work against Delta? Is it safe and effective to get a second J&J shot? Can J&J folks mix shots? If so, which mix is the best?

We don’t know much and I’m incredibly frustrated about this. The lack of guidance or just plain communication from the private (J&J) and/or public sector is unacceptable.

I put together this post based on all the evidence we have today. I realize it’s data heavy, but I wanted to be sure you had a clear understanding of what we have and don’t have so you can make a data-driven decision. I also (reluctantly) provided some insight on what I would do if I had J&J…


Delta Infection

Then Delta came. We needed to quickly assess how well our vaccines (including J&J) were working. But, the U.S. doesn’t have the public health infrastructure to watch this in real time. We are reliant on other countries, like the UK and Israel, that do have these systems in place. Unfortunately, these countries don’t use J&J. So we were/are flying blind.

On July 2, J&J announced that their one dose regimen worked against Delta. Scientists took blood samples from 8 of their clinical trial participants. Then, in petri dishes, they infected the blood with Delta. (I reviewed the study in detail before here).

There was a 1.6-fold decrease in neutralizing antibodies. This is a very little decrease, which is great news. This means that the vaccine could still protect against Delta.

The problem was this is only 8 people. And this was a petri dish study. How did the vaccine work in the “real world”?

 
[icon] said:
"Some patients take it to the extreme. Sample told Insider of a colleague in Florida who recently dealt with an anti-vaxxer who had to be hospitalized after getting the coronavirus.

The man refused all of the treatments, signed a "do not resuscitate" order, and died convinced that COVID-19 was a hoax, Sample said." 
 

At this point I fail to see the problem. One less jaw wagging nonsense. 
I was actually wondering why this... person bothered taking up a hospital bed if he planned to refuse all treatment? Why not just stay home?

 
[icon] said:
"Some patients take it to the extreme. Sample told Insider of a colleague in Florida who recently dealt with an anti-vaxxer who had to be hospitalized after getting the coronavirus.

The man refused all of the treatments, signed a "do not resuscitate" order, and died convinced that COVID-19 was a hoax, Sample said." 
 

At this point I fail to see the problem. One less jaw wagging nonsense. 
These are daily stories on our news and i have three of these people in my extended family

 
Pfizer said vaccine effective for kids 5 to 11

I have a 5 year old and I was pretty excited to wake up and see this news.  One step closer to hopefully some kind of normalcy.

Pfizer said Monday its COVID-19 vaccine works for children ages 5 to 11 and that it will seek U.S. authorization for this age group soon — a key step toward beginning vaccinations for youngsters.

The vaccine made by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech already is available for anyone 12 and older. But with kids now back in school and the extra-contagious delta variant causing a huge jump in pediatric infections, many parents are anxiously awaiting vaccinations for their younger children.

For elementary school-aged kids, Pfizer tested a much lower dose — a third of the amount that’s in each shot given now. Yet after their second dose, children ages 5 to 11 developed coronavirus-fighting antibody levels just as strong as teenagers and young adults getting the regular-strength shots, Dr. Bill Gruber, a Pfizer senior vice president, told The Associated Press.

The kid dosage also proved safe, with similar or fewer temporary side effects — such as sore arms, fever or achiness — that teens experience, he said.

“I think we really hit the sweet spot,” said Gruber, who’s also a pediatrician.

Gruber said the companies aim to apply to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the month for emergency use in this age group, followed shortly afterward with applications to European and British regulators.

Earlier this month, FDA chief Dr. Peter Marks told the AP that once Pfizer turns over its study results, his agency would evaluate the data “hopefully in a matter of weeks” to decide if the shots are safe and effective enough for younger kids.

An outside expert said scientists want to see more details but called the report encouraging.

“These topline results are very good news,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman of Georgetown University, a former FDA vaccine chief. The level of immune response Pfizer reported “appears likely to be protective.”

Many Western countries so far have vaccinated no younger than age 12, awaiting evidence of what’s the right dose and that it works safely. Cuba last week began immunizing children as young as 2 with its homegrown vaccines and Chinese regulators have cleared two of its brands down to age 3.

While kids are at lower risk of severe illness or death than older people, more than 5 million children in the U.S. have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began and at least 460 have died, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Cases in children have risen as the delta variant swept through the country.

 
I don't know the overall statistics, but from my personal experience, all the people I know who has gotten COVID are those that haven't been vaccinated.  I know people who are vaccinated get COVID, but they probably aren't going to the hospital.  I know two people who are on a ventilator and neither have been vaccinated.  To be honest, I would think people would realize that they lessen their chances of dying by getting the shots.  Paranoia is a strange human reaction, especially since millions are NOT dying because they got the shots.  By now that paranoia should have subsided. 

 
UPDATE : VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS
Massive new study of Vaccine vs Delta 

METHOD: 
32,867 patients from 187 hospitals and 221 emergency departments across nine states during June–August 2021 (beginning on the date the Delta variant accounted for >50% of sequenced isolates in each state) 

SUMMARY- EFFECTIVENESS VS HOSPITALIZATION:

Overall (Over 75yo): 76%
Overall (under 75yo): 89%
Moderna (all ages): 95%
Pfizer (all ages): 80%
J&J (all ages): 60% 

CLIFFS NOTES: mRNA Vaccines are still REALLLLLLY ####in good at stopping you from getting very sick with COVID. Also, mRNA vaccines (Moderna & Pfizer) are much better than old tech vaccines (J&J). 

LINK TO PAPER: 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf

Also recent study in Singapore showed vaxxed folks with breakthrough infections: 
- clear the virus much faster  (stop spreading / get better)
- are significantly less likely to have "Long COVID" (lingering long term damage/symptoms)
- 3x more likely to be completely asymptomatic

LINK TO PAPER: 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full-text
I wonder if they controlled for when people got vaccinated and the age groups of those vaccinated?

 
I don't know the overall statistics, but from my personal experience, all the people I know who has gotten COVID are those that haven't been vaccinated.  I know people who are vaccinated get COVID, but they probably aren't going to the hospital.  I know two people who are on a ventilator and neither have been vaccinated.  To be honest, I would think people would realize that they lessen their chances of dying by getting the shots.  Paranoia is a strange human reaction, especially since millions are NOT dying because they got the shots.  By now that paranoia should have subsided. 
A lot of people have been fed brain poison over the past 10-15 years, and unfortunately there is no vaccine for that.  

 
So, as I think I stated before, my wife has an auto-immune thing.  What she has going on causes inflammation and some other symptoms -- but it is that her immune system is over-active, rather than being "immunocompromised" where her system isn't producing enough anti-bodies etc.

This condition helped get her to the front of Phase II (or 1B, or whatever the F PA was calling things) and her doctor did write a letter now saying she can get the third dose.

But my question is, if the third dose prior to 6-month is for people who likely did not have much initial immuno-response, should my wife get it now, or wait for the 6-8 month period, because she probably had the requisite anti-body production back in March/April.  She also has Moderna.

 
I don't know the overall statistics, but from my personal experience, all the people I know who has gotten COVID are those that haven't been vaccinated.  I know people who are vaccinated get COVID, but they probably aren't going to the hospital.  I know two people who are on a ventilator and neither have been vaccinated.  To be honest, I would think people would realize that they lessen their chances of dying by getting the shots.  Paranoia is a strange human reaction, especially since millions are NOT dying because they got the shots.  By now that paranoia should have subsided. 
I'm fully vaxxed and got Covid.  It sucked.  Based on how I felt and my teledoc appointments, if it had been worse I probably would have ended up in the hospital.   Can't imagine having the ability to protect yourself and not doing it.   It's been a month and I'm just starting to be able to do normal things without feeling winded and tired.  All these people that only look at survivability...do you really want to feel like crap for months when you can avoid it?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top