Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Opie

This thought process is equal to gasoline is a fuel, coal is a fuel, why can't I use coal in my car.

Uh, no.

The thought process is that the mechanics/concepts behind how it (a traditional vaccine) works are well-researched, well-tested. This means that the wall between using it for one virus and using it for a newer virus is much lower, because the mechanisms don't need additional research/investment, only the part that involves fighting the new virus.

To use your own example, automobile manufacturers likely know a lot about different fuel sources, like gasoline, ethanol, hydrogen, electricity. They know how to make the energy and deliver it through the drivetrain. The barrier for them is updating the drivetrain to suit the fuel source, just as a traditional vaccine needs to be updated to suit the virus it's needed to fight.

You seem to think they're just bypassing those hoops.

If that were the case, the emergency use authorization would've been done long before any type of phase trialing was done this past year as it would have been deemed unnecessary.

[JD001]

Originally Posted by spike021

Nice!

I had a dream last night that I got mine a week early, lol.

Guess I'm that excited for next Tuesday.

Good luck for next week. I'm still waiting to be called in for my second jab.

BTW, started a new job this week, great to be back in the office after 13months of working from home with the previous employer.. Most if not all of my new colleagues have been vaccinated.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by JD001

Good luck for next week. I'm still waiting to be called in for my second jab.

BTW, started a new job this week, great to be back in the office after 13months of working from home with previous employer.. Most if not not all of my new colleagues have been vaccinated.

I'll bet it is! -

Good luck in your new job -

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by Opie

So you are saying, even if can be scientifically and medically proven that certain people have all the antibodies necessary to prevent infection from this virus that they should still get the vaccine? Why? That makes no sense.

And how does someone being concerned with, asking questions and researching this vaccine when deciding if they should get labeled an anti-vaxxer? A little extremist me thinks.

I never said those who were questioning the vaccine are anti vaxxers. It's always good to question things. I did, and I researched before getting the vaccine.

My statements were directed to those that simply do not want to get the vaccine because they "aren't sheep that's going to be controlled."

Also, how would one make anti bodies to a virus if they either don't get vaccinated for it, or get infected with said virus? In the case of covid, going with the latter is a terrible idea as it is a highly contagious virus, which, circling back to what has been said already, allows the virus to mutate and evolve. This just unnecessarily prolongs this pandemic.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by Opie

Or, even without the booster he may have been fine. (and, no I'm not against the tetanus vaccine) Tetanus also isn't transmitted person to person, usually isn't deadly and has less than 30 cases per year in the US.

Re; Covid, science is already proving that there are those who have the necessary immune system to fight off this disease, as effectively, and in the studies so far, more effectively than with vaccine. So explain why people that already have the antibodies that a vaccine trains your body to make require the vaccine? Sounds like its just to make certain people feel better...

And how did we get to such low numbers of tetanus and other bacterial and viral infections?

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Opie

Or, even without the booster he may have been fine. (and, no I'm not against the tetanus vaccine) Tetanus also isn't transmitted person to person, usually isn't deadly and has less than 30 cases per year in the US.

Re; Covid, science is already proving that there are those who have the necessary immune system to fight off this disease, as effectively, and in the studies so far, more effectively than with vaccine. So explain why people that already have the antibodies that a vaccine trains your body to make require the vaccine? Sounds like its just to make certain people feel better...

Re-read my post. You miss or ignore the point of the post entirely. Had he chosen to forego the tetanus vaccine his decision could affect, at most, one person - him. The decision to boycott the Covid vaccine has the potential to affect many other people. That's why people accuse the boycotters of being selfish and correctly so. They want everything their way. Their idea of living in a society is all take and no give.

As to your claim that infection generates stronger immunity than vaccination - let's see a link to the source. I for one, am skeptical.

[spike021]

Experts say there is no evidence to suggest that vaccinated people pose any harm or threat to unvaccinated people.

Apparently people have been going around making claims that vaccinated people can shed spike proteins on non-vaccinated people.

[Clipdat]

Originally Posted by Opie

And then there's this....

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

As to your claim that infection generates stronger immunity than vaccination - let's see a link to the source. I for one, am skeptical.

It's a few pages back, search for it.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by humfrz

But, how does one know for sure? -

Antibody testing before administering the vaccine, research and testing.

[Opie]

More interesting data no one will read...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...NLbUPUA6_NeoCA

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Opie

More interesting data no one will read...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...NLbUPUA6_NeoCA

Good point, however it is my understanding that ADE was not found in the phase 3 clinical trials.

Here is some information on ADE.
https://www.chop.edu/centers-program...t-and-vaccines

Edit:. Note the date of the study you cited. That is from October 2020 and in reference to trial participants. It is a moot point for the rest of us.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Opie

More interesting data no one will read...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...NLbUPUA6_NeoCA

I read it. The way I read it there needed to be something added to the consent form that says you are are participating in a trial (or accepting a vaccine) that, if it doesn't work on you to prevent the disease, could escalate the severity of the disease if you should contract it.

Are you reading something different?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I read it. The way I read it there needed to be something added to the consent form that says you are are participating in a trial (or accepting a vaccine) that, if it doesn't work on you to prevent the disease, could escalate the severity of the disease if you should contract it.

Are you reading something different?

That article is targeted at consent for trial participants in October 2020. The trial itself found no evidence of ADE in the vaccine, but that was not known before the trial itself.