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.
I hadn't heard of the VAERs reporting system until past couple weeks. I get what it's purpose is, but it is susceptible to error - especially now that this has become political - and the data from it is definitely not meant to be referenced as it has.
I think this even falls flat because who does that and has that ever been a problem? I can see these fake calls that are called in trying to get SWAT teams to peoples' houses (forget the term) being similar, but those are illegal and punishable by law. Mucking up the VAERs system isn't. I wish they had some sort of required standard on the VAERs system now. A few years ago it didn't even occur to me that this would be a problem ever, but here we are.
Correct -- this would involve proving a negative. The positive case (that a vaccination caused a death or malady that would not have otherwise occurred) must instead be established.
I had originally heard of VAERS in the spring. What I thought it was ... was a place for strictly medical professionals to log possible vaccine side effects for follow-up/further study by the CDC. Once I found that VAERS cases were instead self-reported ... yeah. For all intents and purposes, we may treat VAERS data as if it doesn't exist. IMO, anyway. There will be some hundreds of cases that the CDC or other entities may see fit to follow up with, but otherwise there's nothing there.
Do you guys know if there is a "strictly medical professional reported" tracking mechanism...sounds like a good idea. I assume there's something and that's how the FDA/CDC decides what to investigate more deeply...would be interested in the data.
The hard part in the U.S. is that the CDC and FDA don't act as central health-data clearing houses the way, say, the British NHS does. In the U.S., health data collection is fragmented, at minimum, among the 50+ states and territories. Not everyplace reports the same information the same way on the same time frames.
I don't know how much time/effort they put into these.
This country would work significantly better if we did the bottom up approach rather than top down, so when I see decisions getting pushed to the states instead of the federal government, I generally encourage that action. I also encourage the states punting to local municipalities as well.
This is the second time today I've seen this talking point, so it's worth reminding folks that firms can't legally discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. The ruling you're thinking of was whether a baker can be compelled against his will to bake a cake for a gay wedding -- nobody except for me is arguing for a general right to exclude people on whatever grounds you want. The bakery in question apparently sells bread and stuff to gay people all the time. It's just weddings that they have a religious problem with.
Thanks for this, couple of things I found that I think are helpful
The one shot argument may be valid, but I don’t think that graphic fully elaborates the risk:benefit of vaccination versus getting covid.
Couple reasons
Agree completely, the chart goes the right direction to provide valuable insight, but is incomplete. I would also say that it does not capture other potential vaccination risks besides myocarditis. If I were to guess overall if all data was tabulated in aggregate 1 dose makes sense, 2 a coin toss.
Were you unaware that the vaccine caused many to get a '1-day' Flu while their body built antibodies? I felt like crap after my first AZ shot, but had no sickness on the 2nd shot. But I also knew to expect this.
Sure. It also doesn’t come close to listing all the bad stuff covid can do which doesn’t land one in the hospital.
Yes, I had heard this and experienced it myself after the 2nd shot. I was not aware it was as widespread as 1/4 of the population not just sore or headachy but full blown flu symptoms.
It kicked the crap out of me. I got the chills for a couple hours at 3 in the morning, and then I was full blown Flu (mancold) the next day. I hadn't had the flu in 20 years, so I had forgotten what it felt like.
My thought is you should stick to sources like this and not venture into the nonsense of our "media" GB. When you get pure reporting, it shines a spotlight on how many holes and questions there still are. In our "media" all those holes are covered with opinion and
and people unable/unwilling to distinguish between the two.
Can I give this a half thumbs up. A knuckle maybe?My thought is you should stick to sources like this and not venture into the nonsense of our "media" GB. When you get pure reporting, it shines a spotlight on how many holes and questions there still are. In our "media" all those holes are covered with opinion and
You can give whatever you like GB. The most important thing id point out is your perception that the BBC reporting and its completeness.
I mean it might be, but this was my biggest concern from the jump. This issue is going divide the country even more.
Bro my neighbors are as liberal as they come, but they have told me they aren't vaccinating their 7 year old. The data just isnt there.
Do they have enough training to effectively evaluate the performance of the vaccine in the RCTs?
What lie?
The one that says it's "safe" because it takes 5 years to get it to market....that lie. It's all over the place.
Okay. I thought you were going somewhere else. Rereading it makes it fit better. My bad!
If we cut all the government overhead out of vaccines of the past and compare to today, it's easy to see that the science portion was not impacted in a meaningful way and any minuscule differences are completely covered in the popularity and willingness to jump into trials. The data sets are the largest I've ever seen, but I've only been on this earth for 47 years.
He is referencing those that argue these vaccines are still very much untested because it takes years of data to prove they are safe. Which is generally rebutted by the medical guys asking which vaccine historically didn't show adverse effects relatively shortly after introduction.
I mean, if your neighbors are claiming, "the data just isn't there", then I hope they have some training to properly evaluate if "the data just isn't there", otherwise, their claim is based on what exactly?
