Medical Advancements in My Lifetime, Not That Many
- Thread starter glenda
- Start date
WildVolley
Legend
Note, all the best studies of community masking show no benefit. All the data I've seen of areas with mandates versus those without show no difference. You might still think it makes sense for you in particular environments for brief periods of time; you just shouldn't be concerned about other people masking or not. Do you still wear a mask in public?
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
When it comes to wearing masks or taking vaccines, I just decide for myself and don't try to make others wear them or get them. It's up to them.
Note, all the best studies of community masking show no benefit. All the data I've seen of areas with mandates versus those without show no difference. You might still think it makes sense for you in particular environments for brief periods of time; you just shouldn't be concerned about other people masking or not. Do you still wear a mask in public?
Btw, what do you think of the Emirates airlines covid stats plummeting after their strict mask mandate. Masks are good for confined environemnts like planes?
WildVolley
Legend
I understand why someone might still wear a mask when crammed on a plane. It might have worked or it might not have been statistically significant. I'm just glad I didn't have to fly when the mask mandates were being enforced. I find flying bad enough without being stuck in a mask the whole time.
If you are a policy maker, especially in the US where you could face prosecution/lawsuits later, you have to play safe. There was no hindsight possible in this pandemic. If you go against the advice of the WHO, CDC, AMA etc., and things go badly, you will be in jail and civil lawsuits will leave you homeless once you get out of jail. Health care workers where I live overwhelmingly complained about how unmasked and unvaccinated patients were endangering their lives when they were already operating under acute stress.
If you are a politician, you can always invoke hindsight down the line to play on peoples' economic suffering to get some votes, but you are not the one working in the hospital. I remember a husband-wife nurse couple telling me how some older patients from other states with lax rules were flying and were full of the "freedom" spirit, landing here, and next day getting admitted and sneezing in their faces. All the "freedom" evaporated in the ICU.
Just because the COVID vax (probably) can't eradicate the virus, doesn't mean it isn't important.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Is it possible to eradicate the covid-19 or not? - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
COVID spreads in much the same way as the Flu (though it spreads more quickly than the Flu). So you basically take the same precautions. Wearing a mask is much like covering your nose and mouth when you cough I suppose.
www.mayoclinic.org
COVID-19 vs. flu: What's the difference?
Find out the similarities and differences between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the flu (influenza) and learn about ways to prevent getting these diseases.
www.mayoclinic.org
WildVolley
Legend
Probably? Vaccinated and boosted people right now are getting infected. If it fails to eradicate the virus in boosted people, why should we think there's a chance it will work in the future?Just because the COVID vax (probably) can't eradicate the virus, doesn't mean it isn't important.
Is it possible to eradicate the covid-19 or not? - PMC
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
pretty good indications that it mitigates the symptoms. Virtually all the very ill covid patients needing admission to our hospital were not vaccinated, while the milder cases who can be sent home most often were vaccinated.
WildVolley
Legend
This would be a good reason for at-risk elderly people. Not at all clear there was any potential benefit for young people who faced vanishingly small risks, especially given the known myocarditis risk in young men.
Most everyone I know already had the infection. I don't know anyone who died of C19 or was hospitalized.
Were the very ill covid patients always elderly people?
Things like Small Pox and Polio can be eradicated with Vaccine (and of course good sanitation / living conditions as you say). I'd find it hard to believe that anyone can have an issue with these types of vaccinations. Sure, there are always going to be a few people out of the billions that receive the vaccination that will have adverse reactions. If you're looking for perfection, you'll never find it. Everything is cost / benefit.
For things like Flu and Covid, these can't be eradicated (for the reasons stated in the article). Does that mean the vaccinations are worthless? I guess you need to do an honest analysis and look at the costs and benefits. Does the benefit only apply for certain groups (elderly)? Are the costs too high for people aged 18-55 that probably aren't going to die or be hospitalized for Flu or Covid? Or is it a good idea for them to be vaccinated too "for the good of the population"?
Even if you argue that the benefits aren't there (which I'm not agreeing with), I don't see any great costs involved either. As I said, there will always be a few people out of the billions that receive the vaccination that will have adverse reactions. If we know who they are likely to be, of course we don't what them taking it. If we don't know, is the cost of these adverse reactions to the few too high for the benefit to the many (if indeed there is benefit)? It's a question worth looking at.
To me, the benefits appear to outweigh the costs. I'm in favor of the Flu and Covid vaccinations. My view is probably more to do with the absence of costs. Even if you want to argue that there isn't any benefit to many people who get vaccinated, there also doesn't appear to be any cost either. So I guess it's like buying insurance you never use (well, not really, but hopefully you see what I'm saying).
WildVolley
Legend
Have you looked at the myocarditis costs? This is one well-known adverse side-effect from Covid vaccines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9880674/), and the rates seem highest in young men. Heart scarring is not a trivial issue. Epidemiologists such as Vinay Prasad (UCSF) and public health professors such as Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) have called for a halt in the vax for the young because of this problem.
I've seen shoddy arguments online claiming that this isn't a problem because the infection can also cause myocarditis. There's usually a slight of hand in these papers in that they look at rates for all infections rather than in the relevant age groups. Any serious study has to stratify risks by age and known comorbidities. Secondly, since the vax doesn't stop infection, the relevant question is whether the extra risk of of heart damage from the vax is offset by a reduce risk when the person is infected. The proper studies to assess this risk have not been conducted. Ask why not?
You might believe in an absence of cost because you are not aware that costs have been extensively censored. People who mentioned side effects were censored from social media at the request of govt. This is well documented and led to multiple lawsuits. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) showed unprecedented safety signals for the Covid mRNA vaccines. I do not believe this has been properly researched. The risks of C19 are massively age stratified.
Since C19 vaccinations don't stop the spread of the virus, the argument for "the good of the community" is eliminated.
Last edited:
The article in your above post starts like this:
Background
Myocarditis is a rare but significant adverse event associated with COVID‐19 vaccination, especially for men under 40.The article is long. I didn't read it. If your case is presented there, do all of us a favor and cite the relevant passages for us please.
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not censoring you. If you have data, present it. The floor is yours. I'm interested to hear your arguments.
Make it simple for me please. Name the risk (myocarditis for example). Numerically state how much this has increased (it went from one case in a billion to 2 cases in a billion for example). And then show how the vaccine is responsible. The more risks you are able to present, obviously the stronger your case is. So don't feel you have to limit yourself. List every risk you know of.
I don't think I'm making an unreasonable request. If you have reasons for your beliefs, present them.
We all know there are risks associated with everything. I'm sure people have died from the Polio and Small Pox vaccines. When you inject vaccines into billions of people you are guaranteed to have some bad results. Nobody is questioning that. What we are asking is how common the risk is and how severe. Then we weigh that against the benefits to the individual and the population as a whole. Then we make a decision knowing that we will have to accept some bad results.
Last edited:
It either stops it or it's not good? 100% success or worthless? If that's the criteria we are using, then I'd say nearly everything fails the test. And I only say "nearly" as a hedge. It's probably everything.
I'd look at it on a spectrum. Far left side is worst. Far right side is best. Does the vax move us further to the right? Even if we don't make it all the way to the right? That is most certainly the idea behind the Flu vax.
WildVolley
Legend
Vinay Prasad has argued young men suffer a 1/10,000 risk of myocarditis from each additional dose of the vax. That's high enough to eliminate mandates and suggest caution for anyone in that group.
There are a lot of other potential side effects that can be looked up if you are willing to read sources who have been censored by social media and search engines. Dr. Peter McCullough is a good source of such information.
WildVolley
Legend
A vaccine doesn't have to be 100% successful in order to pass legal muster under public health laws, but at the federal level, the Supreme Court precedent in Jacobson vs Mass (1905), which was a small pox case, said that the justification for a public health mandate is to stop spread. The C19 vax doesn't stop spread. In fact, there is no quality evidence showing it even reduces spread. Both Fauci and Biden have gotten infected multiple times and spread from vaxxed people is well documented. That should have killed the legal case for the Biden mandate.
Biden, like most Presidents, tried to skirt the Constitution by claiming he was regulating interstate commerce by mandating the shot at certain business. All sorts of unconstitutional mandates are justified on the basis of the commerce clause (this has been the case since the Great Depression). The court struck it down, eventually. I just take offense that a President tried to get me and my friends fired because we wouldn't take his experimental medical treatment. He knew at the time that vaxxed people were contracting and spreading the disease, which makes it clear he knew his propaganda phrase "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" was untrue.
United States law and several international treaties recognize a right to medical liberty. The government can't mandate medical treatment just because they feel like it or would like to see what a medicine will do.
I'll latch on to solid info in your posts. If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying there is no benefit from the vax, correct?
You could build a space ship in your garage if you're willing to look up and understand all of the information needed. I'm well aware I could read the internet all day and find lots of stuff.
What I'm asking for is your argument. The argument you're using to make your decision.
WildVolley
Legend
No. I'm saying that the potential benefit is highly dependent on who you are: your age, your sex, your bodyfat level, your metabolic health, whether you've been previously infected, the variant you're trying to protect yourself from, etc. Each man should make the decision for himself based on the best scientific evidence and logic. But the overall case for most people is poor, especially given the limited safety testing done on the mRNA vaxes, which were expedited.
To simplify, the older you are and the less metabolically healthy you are, the better the chance taking the initial batch provided some short-term benefit.
In my case, since I was previously infected and was at a healthy weight, active, and with good metabolic health, I saw no benefit and potential risk.
My concern has always been the one-size-fits-all nature of the recommendation, the paucity of the evidence for benefit, the heavy censorship of side-effect reports, and the proven dishonesty of the public health officials and agencies.
You're probably right. Thanks. That's really my understanding as well.
Even so, I don't perceive the risks as being high or that significant. So I'd still push the vax if I were making public policy.
EDIT: Sorry, @WildVolley I inserted the second sentence after you "liked" my post. You might want to remove that. But on the whole, I definitely see where you are coming from on this. Thanks again.
WildVolley
Legend
Let me give you the most extreme example I can think of: Novak Djokovic. One of the fittest men in the world. Mid thirties. Proven previous infection. No quality evidence showing any benefit for someone in his case to get the vax.
Denying him entry into the United States was pure political theater unsupported by scientific evidence.
You can’t openly have different rules for rich and powerful people. Perception is more important than facts
RSJfan
Professional
The Eggvax Affair was peak TTW. It’s when my fav Dr Raul SJ began to really shine.
WildVolley
Legend
The reality was crazier. The Biden administration was not requiring illegal aliens who had been caught and then requested asylum to get the vax even though they were allowed to stay in the country until their court dates. So the concern over a double-standard was make believe. Since active infection already existed across the whole country, the pretense about the threat from foreigners was pure theater.
Biden mandates COVID-19 vaccines for American workers but gives border crossers a pass?
Why won't the Biden administration explain why it is not requiring asylum seekers to get vaccinated?
www.azcentral.com
WildVolley
Legend
I always felt the hysterical complaints here about Djokovic putting us all at risk were motivated more by rabid Fed and Nadal fans wanting to deny Djoker another slam more than any legitimate concerns about the precious bodily fluids of Americans or Australians.
RSJfan
Professional
[
It was about the CCP conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
It was about the CCP conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
