Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Can you define what long term is? From what I’ve read, it is extremely extremely rare for serious side effect from a vaccine to show up more than 2 months after administration. Since we are now well beyond 2 months for a majority of folks vaccinated in the US, it seems that we pretty well already know if there are long term serious side effects.
This is good news though. If we let the FDA have its way, we'd all be dead of old age before they got around to approving booster shots.
Who is saying collect no data? That doesn't make any sense. Did someone say that? I disagree with thatWE HAVE NO DATA!!!!!! Oh, you want to collect more data?!?!?!?!?! CAN'T DO THAT!!! WE HAVE NO DATA!!!!
You continually defend the use of these drugs simply because they’ve been around for awhile. You ignore that these drugs have never been used for any similar treatments. In the case of ivermectin, the dosing schedule has never been tested and I’ve seen several different ones used. There’s no standard for what they’re doing.
Not nit picking..but isn't this vaccination a new method and not like the others? If that's the case, we can't go by what other vaccines showed.
Hell yeah I am. I want as much data as possible if it can be done safely. I want there to be as much proof as possible that this vaccine is safe and effective. It's important. We can make much more informed decisions if we get more data.
I don't have one unfortunately. I have no data to support what might be long term in this situation. So I can't honestly answer that.
Would a full FDA approval work for you? Rather than the EUA currently used to get these vaccines to market.
You mean the countries that are currently Nos. 2 and 3 (behind the US) in total Covid deaths? If those treatments are so widespread in those countries, why haven't they seen better outcomes?
I wondered the same thing, but I suspect the two of us have very different answers to that question.
So is the one factor stopping you from getting the vaccine is the short time it took to get to the market? Basically, under 8 months of trials.
You should pay better attention and not be so judg-y.
Huh. I was just asking you if that was your biggest concern about the vaccine. Not trying to be judgy.
Completely shuked on the purpose of this post. Do you think being asked for an expanded study is a black mark?
Ok...thanks. I misunderstood this comment:
That came across as sarcasm and that it wasn't a good idea. Apologies.
This would mean the prospect of "having sufficient long-term data" is unfalsifiable. Fortunately, the "long-term" safety of these vaccines is a certainty.
No...Im saying there could be some side effects...and it seems to be enough to need to be studied. But people here, many many people here, think everyone should be stabbed, and keep saying how they KNOW these things are safe. And ignore studies like this.
I haven't read a single person here saying that kids have nothing to worry about. They're still in the study phase. That's the link you posted. I've read a TON of people say, given the info we have they are ok with moving forward with vaccines in those 12+. That's not the same thing as "knowing" it's safe. What we actually KNOW is outcomes for people who've gotten the vaccine and the outcomes of people who have chanced it without. So far, if we attribute every single death reported of a person who got the vaccine directly to the vaccine as cause of death, it's around the 6K number and there's not a chance that the vaccine is THE cause of death in most of those, but for argument sake we'll stipulate. Compare that to the over 600K who have died to COVID itself. We KNOW as much about the long term affects of the vaccine as we do the long term affects of the virus (probably more about the vaccines actually) and people STILL choose to go with the virus given it's success rate instead of the vaccine given it's failure rate (which is 100 times less).
It meant there seems to be a reason for it. Which means there might be adverse side effects. Which is why a study is being conducted. If this was 100% totally safe these studies wouldn't be needed.
I stopped reading your post after the first sentence as just around this post was a poster with a four letter first name who has said the vax is 100% safe. I was assuming he was including kids in that 100%
No government is mandating that you take the vaccine. But your reasoning continues to gloss over the part where by being unvaccinated you can be an easier vector for transmission to someone who is unable to be vaccinated and then has a bad outcome. The other people part. And, expecting that decision to come consequence free is unrealistic. Maybe not forced by the government, but what's about when it's the sports league that tells you no? Or the restaurant? You don't want to get the vaccine in the face of overwhelming safety and efficacy data, fine. But you're failing to understand that it impacts other people, and that the decision won't come consequence free as you demand.
Honestly, if you don't want to get the vax that is on you. However, don't rely on a bunch of conspiracy theories and things proven not to successfully treat the virus. Spreading these conspiracy theories are a huge problem and the fact you think a worm medicine is going to protect you is a complete joke.
Your numbers and methodology of comparison are very flawed.
Be direct. If you take issue, call me out.
This doesn't mean:
Why on earth would we need to test a certainty? That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm moving on from you now. Sorry
I’m starting to see a trend:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
This almost comes across as if you won't believe whatever the new data says, so why encourage more data collection?
Kinda nit picky but my point was I'm not confident in the current data, because I don't feel there is enough of it.I know I'm late to the party and apologize if you've already clarified this, but these two posts seemed incongruent and I'd like to ask about it.
Hospitals rec'd much larger Medicare payouts for patients reported to have died by Covid. In many states, including NY, having a positive test wasn't even required. All that was needed was presumption of infection. Maybe the 600k is legit, maybe it's not.
How many people know about the VAERS system? If a tree falls in an empty forrest, it doesn't count, right?
I see a trend in strawman arguments. I never said this.
That's illogical...there is no vaccine for kids yet so not sure why you'd assume that....makes sense. You should read the rest. It's informative and sheds a light on some of the ill thought out talking points we hear often in these parts.
I was just reading the guy's post that said, and I quote:
To be clear....that post was me emulating the "logic" constantly put forth in this thread. I agree, it's very flawed. I am trying to meet people where they are using their logic to illustrate the problems. Now maybe we can stop with the logic and move forward with the things we actually know both about the virus and the vaccine.
If you can't define what "long term" is, then how can you logically make the statement below?
Youre right...I left out a word. although there was no malice intended. This is a direct copy and paste
Again, you think there’s a conspiracy for hospitals to prop up COVID deaths in order to defraud the federal government but your counter argument is ‘look at this self-report system’. I can go on there right now and start reporting deaths that I make up and it will go into the same total you quote.
