2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Agema]

*shrug* I had Pfizer and the extent of what I noticed in the days following was soreness around the injection site after the first shot and nothing noticeable after the second, so that's apparently not a hard and fast rule.

Few things in biology and medicine are a hard and fast rule...

 

[Buyetyen]

Few things in biology and medicine are a hard and fast rule...

I'm guessing that's one of the things frustrating the vaccine deniers and anti-maskers and other people like Phoenix. They want there to be a concrete rule. 2 + 2 always equals 4, so all science should be that simple, right?

 

[Asita]

Few things in biology and medicine are a hard and fast rule...

Granted. I just felt that if we were chiming in about our experiences, I might as well toss my own into the ring, though obviously I could have chosen my words a bit better.

 

[Gordon_4]

*shrug* I had Pfizer and the extent of what I noticed in the days following was soreness around the injection site after the first shot and nothing noticeable after the second, so that's apparently not a hard and fast rule.

I got Pfizer as well and that was my exact experience. A sore arm for the injection site and nothing more.

 

[davidmc1158]

Got the second Moderna vaccine shot on a Saturday. Did my damndest to sleep through Sunday completely. Was pretty much back to fine on Monday. Wasn't sick, just felt a whole lot of just bleagh for the day. That and a low-grade headache for a couple of days. Nothing major, just annoying.

The first shot just gave me a sore arm for a day or two.

 

[Agema]

I'm guessing that's one of the things frustrating the vaccine deniers and anti-maskers and other people like Phoenix. They want there to be a concrete rule. 2 + 2 always equals 4, so all science should be that simple, right?

I think it's mostly a psychological thing about fear and control.

They are afraid of the situation, they do not understand the thing they are using / offered so it is easy to fear, and they don't trust companies, governments, doctors, etc. so they fear them too. So they are afraid someone's going to trick them and take their stuff: claims that the government is taking away their rights and will never give them back, through low-level conspiracies like pharmaceutical companies hiding cheap and easy treatments so they can make billions off novel ones at grossly inflated prices, and the more extreme end that Bill Gates is injecting a microchip into us, or Huawei masts and 5G cause covid. This is also ties into frustration and resentment of interference in their lives: losing their jobs, shutting their bars and restaurants, making them wear masks, putting them to inconvenience.

Finally, thinking we know things provides an illusion of control. Covid-19 has not, in a way, been that catastrophic. But it is a form of natural disaster, and natural disasters are almost unparallelled at demonstrating to us just how weak, powerless and insignificant as individuals we are, and how our lives can be upended or obliterated at a stroke of chance. The aim here becomes to think one's competence and knowledge is a form of protection. It doesn't need to be real competence, just a convincing-enough illusion. A similar thing, I think, lies in victim-blaming, of people protecting themselves from the discomfort of fear of crime with the reassurance it wouldn't happen to them because they know better.

Concrete rules are attractive to this, because it makes everything seem easier and therefore more controllable and less scary.

 

[Seanchaidh]

claims that the government is taking away their rights and will never give them back

another one of "well, yes, but not like that."

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The mask was never meant to protect the wearer, it was meant to protect people around them. Masks have a very dubious effectiveness in preventing the wearer from falling ill in Covid-19 but has a pretty good rate (some studies say upwards of 60%) of preventing a contagious person from spreading Covid-19. And since people who have had Covid-19 or have been vaccinated can still spread it the use of masks makes some sense.

But hey what do I know? I don't watch those youtube videos of yours, I just work in an organization where Covid-19 prevention measures are very serious business.

I'd like to see those studies, are they actual real-world results (or some model based results)? Also, the main places where people get infected like work or home where you spend hours with people, how effective are masks there? Masks aren't great protection obviously so I don't see them doing too well in those environments. Going to the grocery store or whatever is rather low risk as you're not with strangers for prolonged periods. Thus how much of an effect is there where people actually wear masks? One of the only places I can see masks (assuming they do work even modestly) potentially working out well is public transportation. The biggest covid mask study I've seen is the Danish one that showed no statistical significance. The amount of people that can spread it from natural immunity or vaccination is what %? I'm guessing that is pretty damn low %.

Dude, you posted the recommendation from "50 years ago". It was left to me to point out the large amount of subsequent data suggesting it was valid.

Because it's the same recommendation of today and the recommendation came from when we didn't know shit about vitamin d. And the recommendation is only concerning bone health and nothing else.

Okay, so what you're telling me here is that you are completely unfamiliar with the studies on remdesivir. You know so little about it, you don't even understand how misguided your argument is.

A basic SARS-CoV-2 infection which is asymptomatic or mild lasts about 10 days, but longer is often observed for severe symptoms generally associated with higher viral load. The key study supporting use showed that it was more effective (as measured by reducing time in hospital) when administered early (<10 days after infection) than later. So, just what we'd expect from an antiviral and with what we know about the course of the covid-19 viral infection. The rationale for use of remdesivir was administration upon hospitalisation (which generally occurs within 10 days after infection) to mitigate symptoms worsening and speed recovery. Some doctors think remdesivir still has a use, albeit a niche one, and by your own principles of letting doctors doctor they should be able to do so.

There is not a substantial problem here. It's just a confection you've made up because you know too little to comprehend what's right and wrong.

So no decrease in mortality then? For a very expensive treatment that has side effects?

By the time someone gets sick enough to go to the hospital, the virus is either gone or almost gone. The virus is in essence not causing the symptoms that but your immune system response. Why would you prescribe an anti-viral to "fix" that?

I'd like to see what it does very early on like you came into contact with covid, tested positive, then started taking it or on first symptom onset. However, remdesivir is too expensive, requires hospital administration, and we don't have enough of the drug to do this to everyone that gets infected. And is it worth the side effects of the drug to give this to people that most likely won't get very sick from covid to begin with?

And the vaccines provide incomparably higher benefit: not least because they are proven to be highly efficacious, which is more than anyone can say about HCQ and ivermectin.

The very mild side effects are easily worth it if they save you from a hospitalization or death. People already get headaches and whatnot from the vaccines for that very trade already. Sure, the vaccines are highly effective but someone with covid sitting home waiting for it to pass I doubt cares about a headache or diarrhea during that time from a drug anyway.

Waffle.

The flu killed 172 kids in 2018 in Florida. Covid killed 43 people 24 and under in Florida (as of January 29th). I'm using Florida because schools were open the whole school year so that you can't say "well, schools haven't been open". The worst part about the flu deaths is that about half the deaths were healthy kids. How many healthy kids have died from covid in comparison? I'm guessing it's almost 0. So, you can keep home the very small % of high-risk kids from covid and probably reduce covid deaths in kids to near 0. Thus, why are we wanting to vaccinate kids?

Oh my god. We have plenty of evidence masks work. Why are you still lying to everyone about this?

Waiting on real-world stats. Where are they?

I'll look at something when you make a case worth looking into. I've already told you what you'd need to do.

As it is, you've advanced an argument little more credible than that Martians made covid-19 and injected it into the bum of a pangolin in a Chinese wet market.

I said that places that approved ivermectin showed improvements but you didn't want to look at it. How is that not worth looking into?

Data point of 1, but I'm fully vaccinated and the worst that happened to me was 48 hours of feeling groggy. Slept it off like a hangover and I'm back to 100%.

Everyone at work that's gotten vaccinated has had at least one or 2 days that they couldn't do anything. One guy got his 2nd shot Thursday morning and had to leave after lunch and he called off Friday too. He took his temperature leaving the hospital and it was 99.9. His dad had got a 103 temperature from the vaccine.

Why do we accept the risk of side effects? It's usually because the drug in question has a proven benefit that outweighs it.

Do you take random non-prescribed meds because the side-effects are "very minor" and for all you know they "might help"? Why not just eat... I don't know, wasps? Same arguments apply. Side effects minor; benefits not yet totally disproven.

If something is known to possibly cause hospitalization and death and a drug in theory will help causing only mild side effects, why wouldn't anyone want to possibly lower the risk of hospitalization or death? I'd do that 100 of 100 times.

 

[Buyetyen]

Everyone at work that's gotten vaccinated has had at least one or 2 days that they couldn't do anything. One guy got his 2nd shot Thursday morning and had to leave after lunch and he called off Friday too. He took his temperature leaving the hospital and it was 99.9. His dad had got a 103 temperature from the vaccine.

Do they still draw breath? If so, preferable than the alternative.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm guessing that's one of the things frustrating the vaccine deniers and anti-maskers and other people like Phoenix. They want there to be a concrete rule. 2 + 2 always equals 4, so all science should be that simple, right?

I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anti-masker. If the coronavirus thread from the old forums was still up, it would show me saying I'm for masks when everyone else was posting flu mask studies that said they didn't work. I also believe (because there's no data on it) that masking helps lower the viral load that leads to less severe symptoms. I only say where's the real-world data to show that the theory works because I've seen no real-world data showing masks do anything. I am for masks, but I can't prove that they work. At this point in the pandemic, community transmission is so low and such a large % of the population either have natural immunity or have been vaccinated that masking is probably doing very little, if anything, right now. Masking outside was always bullshit, I was never for that.

I'm against forcing people to get vaccinated because you have a large chunk of the population that already had covid and don't need vaccination. To force vaccinations is being an immunity denier. Kids also shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated because in the US we only force kids to get vaccinated against diseases that disproportionately affect them and covid does not disproportionately affect them. If you want to force kids to get vaccinated, where was your opinion the rest of your life about forcing kids to get the flu vaccine when the flu is more deadly to them and they spread that much more easily than covid? If you're fine with kids not getting the flu shot, why do you want them to get the covid shot? Stay consistent in your rationale is all I ask.

Do they still draw breath? If so, preferable than the alternative.

The point wasn't about not getting vaccinated, but the side effects of the vaccination.

 

[Avnger]

The point wasn't about not getting vaccinated, but the side effects of the vaccination.

All of which are less than the effects of actually having COVID. Nevermind the fact that Bob being sick for a day from the vaccine doesn't lead to him passing anything on to his coworkers, friends, and/or family. Nor does the vaccine use Bob's body as an incubator for new variations or mutations that could be more contagious, more harmful, and/or not covered by existing treatments/preventions.

 

[Agema]

Because it's the same recommendation of today and the recommendation came from when we didn't know shit about vitamin d. And the recommendation is only concerning bone health and nothing else.

I'm not doing this shit again. You didn't pay attention first time round, you're not going to now.

So no decrease in mortality then? For a very expensive treatment that has side effects?

Oh, maybe you can read something halfway useful then.

By the time someone gets sick enough to go to the hospital, the virus is either gone or almost gone.

Wrong. And not just wrong, because I've already supplied figures relating to precisely this point so deliberately obtuse.

The virus is in essence not causing the symptoms that but your immune system response. Why would you prescribe an anti-viral to "fix" that?

And you don't think helping clear a virus might theoretically mitigate an immune response?

The very mild side effects are easily worth it if they save you from a hospitalization or death.

There's no evidence they save people from hospitalisation and death, and some people have severe wide effects.

Thus, why are we wanting to vaccinate kids?

1) To protect them just in case in they are one of the rare cases where it does cause hospitalisation or long-term harm
2) To make it them less infectious to other people. I mean, "herd immunity" - I presume you've heard of the term. The more people immune the better.

Waiting on real-world stats. Where are they?

Again, we've done this. You were deliberately obtuse then, you'll be deliberately obtuse now.

I said that places that approved ivermectin showed improvements but you didn't want to look at it. How is that not worth looking into?

Number of feral cats:


Number of Chinese restaurants:


Proof, Phoenixmgs-style, that it's not really pork in your Asian takeaway.

 

[Avnger]

Proof, Phoenixmgs-style, that it's not really pork in your Asian takeaway.

You forgot to stick it in a youtube video

 

[Silvanus]

If something is known to possibly cause hospitalization and death and a drug in theory will help causing only mild side effects, why wouldn't anyone want to possibly lower the risk of hospitalization or death? I'd do that 100 of 100 times.

"In theory", "possibly". Except neither of those qualifiers have any actual data behind them.

So: I theorise eating wasps will help. It's possible it could; it hasn't been disproven.

Proof, Phoenixmgs-style, that it's not really pork in your Asian takeaway.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anti-masker. If the coronavirus thread from the old forums was still up, it would show me saying I'm for masks when everyone else was posting flu mask studies that said they didn't work. I also believe (because there's no data on it) that masking helps lower the viral load that leads to less severe symptoms. I only say where's the real-world data to show that the theory works because I've seen no real-world data showing masks do anything. I am for masks, but I can't prove that they work. At this point in the pandemic, community transmission is so low and such a large % of the population either have natural immunity or have been vaccinated that masking is probably doing very little, if anything, right now. Masking outside was always bullshit, I was never for that.

I'm against forcing people to get vaccinated because you have a large chunk of the population that already had covid and don't need vaccination. To force vaccinations is being an immunity denier. Kids also shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated because in the US we only force kids to get vaccinated against diseases that disproportionately affect them and covid does not disproportionately affect them. If you want to force kids to get vaccinated, where was your opinion the rest of your life about forcing kids to get the flu vaccine when the flu is more deadly to them and they spread that much more easily than covid? If you're fine with kids not getting the flu shot, why do you want them to get the covid shot? Stay consistent in your rationale is all I ask.



The point wasn't about not getting vaccinated, but the side effects of the vaccination.

So in one paragraph you say there's no evidence that masks do anything, then in the next paragraph you assert without evidence that getting covid once makes you immune for life and against all variants, thus rendering vaccination redundant.

Do you see how I'm getting some mixed messages here?

You may not be an anti-vaxxer explicitly, but you certainly believe a lot of the same shit they do.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not doing this shit again. You didn't pay attention first time round, you're not going to now.

You didn't listen to every single vitamin d expert, which all would laugh at the UK recommendation.

Wrong. And not just wrong, because I've already supplied figures relating to precisely this point so deliberately obtuse.

Studies in China and the US suggest that most patients, on average, are admitted to the hospital about one week after symptoms begin.

Thus, patients arriving at the hospital have most likely cleared the viral infection already.

And you don't think helping clear a virus might theoretically mitigate an immune response?

Already cleared most likely as shown above. And even if it isn't, it's not like the immune system actually has a hard time clearing it.

There's no evidence they save people from hospitalisation and death, and some people have severe wide effects.

There is plenty of evidence...

1) To protect them just in case in they are one of the rare cases where it does cause hospitalisation or long-term harm
2) To make it them less infectious to other people. I mean, "herd immunity" - I presume you've heard of the term. The more people immune the better.

They already are safer from covid than the flu and don't really spread it. They are just developing the ACE2 receptors so the virus has a hard time infecting cells and replicating.

Again, we've done this. You were deliberately obtuse then, you'll be deliberately obtuse now.

You really have a hard time citing sources. There are no real world stats showing they work.

Proof, Phoenixmgs-style, that it's not really pork in your Asian takeaway.

So if 20 countries do X and show improvement, it's just random coincidence?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

All of which are less than the effects of actually having COVID. Nevermind the fact that Bob being sick for a day from the vaccine doesn't lead to him passing anything on to his coworkers, friends, and/or family. Nor does the vaccine use Bob's body as an incubator for new variations or mutations that could be more contagious, more harmful, and/or not covered by existing treatments/preventions.

I was only saying that the side effects of vaccination are far more than drugs that are extremely safe. Side effects aren't some evil thing that must be avoided at all costs.

You forgot to stick it in a youtube video

I'd like to see who has a higher hit/miss ratio on this forum concerning covid.

When people posted about finding covid on cruise ships weeks after they were emptied, I claimed bullshit on that (because finding inactive virus is meaningless). And now we know...

COVID-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning?

The coronavirus behind the pandemic can linger on doorknobs and other surfaces, but these aren’t a major source of infection.

www.nature.com

When people said covid immunity wasn't long lasting because of antibody studies or occasional reinfection story, I claimed bullshit. And where's the mass reinfections you'd expect to see? And now...

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

My prediction for no restrictions from last October was this summer and look at all the mask mandates falling right now and it's not even summer yet. Everyone was saying YEARS.

When people here said everyone was gonna die in Texas because of no restrictions March 10th, I said nothing was gonna happen and Texas' infection curve has only gone down since March 10th.

When people said the SCARY variants were gonna be a problem with immunity and vaccines, I called bullshit yet again. You form CD8 cells across 52 different pieces of the spike protein of covid so if you have a couple/several mutations, you're plenty good still. And all the vaccines work just fine against the variants. No mass infections of vaccinated people happening because of variants.

New prediction: We will not need booster shots for the variants (because the vaccines work with real world data) and we will not need yearly vaccines because immunity is long lasting.

You really wanna say I don't do the research?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"In theory", "possibly". Except neither of those qualifiers have any actual data behind them.

You do realize that remdesivir has no theory or data behind it working. There is data showing ivermectin works.

So in one paragraph you say there's no evidence that masks do anything, then in the next paragraph you assert without evidence that getting covid once makes you immune for life and against all variants, thus rendering vaccination redundant.

Do you see how I'm getting some mixed messages here?

You may not be an anti-vaxxer explicitly, but you certainly believe a lot of the same shit they do.

Where's the REAL WORLD evidence of masks working? Nobody has yet to post any sources.

I just searched for a comparison of states that had masking and no masking and here is the most recent analysis of that (filtering results from past month).

Mask adherence and rate of COVID-19 across the United States

Mask wearing has been advocated by public health officials as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In the United States, policies on mask wearing have varied from state to state over the course of the pandemic. Even as more and more states encourage or even mandate mask wearing, many citizens...

journals.plos.org

We show supporting evidence for reducing the spread of COVID-19 through mask wearing. This protective effect of mask wearing was evident across four months of the pandemic, even after adjusting the associations for mask policy, distance policy, and demographic factors. We observed some benefit of mask policy on COVID-19 rates, but the findings were unstable.

In conclusion, we show that mask wearing adherence, regardless of mask wearing policy, may curb the spread of COVID-19 infections.

Here's the evidence for long lasting immunity. Not that it proves it lasts for life but years at least. SARS from 2003 is on 18 years of immunity and counting. If immunity was short-lived, where's the mass reinfections at? There's no evidence saying that infected people need to be vaccinated. There's also no evidence showing the vaccines don't work against the variants, also natural immunity works against more of the virus (not just the spike protein like the vaccines) I believe as I don't feel like re-looking that bit up. One kind of immunity surely is better than the other but doubtful any form will not protect against hospitalization and death (outside of the very occasional exception). Some vaccines are more effective than others but they are all working GREAT.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Silvanus]

You do realize that remdesivir has no theory or data behind it working. There is data showing ivermectin works.

Just not good data. Data showing potential, unproven benefits in very large quantities and in very specific circumstances.