2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,978
324
88
And the people who are immuno-compromised and can't get the vaccine? Fuck 'em?

And for fuck's sake, the side effects are about 48 hours of flu-like symptoms. It's not like one of those boner pills advertised on TV with side effects including diarrhea, nausea, internal hemorrhaging and lycanthropy. Don't be difficult.
Any infection can kill someone who is immuno-compromised. For someone with advanced HIV/aids or someone who recently had an organ transplant it is particularly unsafe to go outside anyway b/c you're always exposed to pathogens. It's impossible to immunize everybody against every conceivable infection so I don't see what makes covid so unique in that regard. It's benign for like 99% of the population. Scientists also declared covid endemic so it's not like it will ever go away either.

As for vaccine safety, the mrna vaccines appear to indeed be safe but the adenovirus vaccines do have, albeit rare, serious to lethal side effects. When you give these kind of vaccines to healthy people who by all accounts won't get very ill from covid it's not 'being difficult' to make a risk/benefit analysis. Since when, with any kind of medical intervention, is any precaution thrown in the wind with little or nothing to gain for the individual patient?

Perhaps when you literally used the words "Children have zero risk from covid infections" (emphasis mine)? If you don't want to be called out for saying obviously incorrect shit, don't write obviously incorrect shit...
Because it doesn't elaborate on any risk factors these children might have had. When 99,9% of children won't even notice they are infected becase the virus is removed from their system pretty much instantly it's safe to assume there is some kind of rare predisposition, maybe genetics or immunological, that puts these children at risk for covid. There is always some exception to the rule. Which also makes it more likely that the specific syndrome Agema mentioned isn't even unique to covid, but rather some kind of overreaction to viral infection in general. That isn't new either. IBS, ME, chronic fatique syndrome etc are also implicated to be post infectious syndromes where the immune system caused nervous system sensitivities.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,909
1,125
118
Country
USA
Any infection can kill someone who is immuno-compromised. For someone with advanced HIV/aids or someone who recently had an organ transplant it is particularly unsafe to go outside anyway b/c you're always exposed to pathogens. It's impossible to immunize everybody against every conceivable infection so I don't see what makes covid so unique in that regard. It's benign for like 99% of the population. Scientists also declared covid endemic so it's not like it will ever go away either.
So fuck 'em, got it.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,978
324
88
So fuck 'em, got it.
Who says that? Do you think it's realistic to eliminate every pathogen from the population that would be harmful to people with compromised immune systems? If it's just covid then it would be completely symbolic b/c flu etc is just as dangerous for immuno compromised people. Not to mention bacteria and the likes. I believe the advice to people with compromised immune systems have always been to self-quarantine long before covid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,833
1,519
118
Country
United Kingdom
Who says that? Do you think it's realistic to eliminate every pathogen from the population that would be harmful to people with compromised immune systems?
I think its realistic to lower the risk as much as is practicable to protect them, yes, particularly if something is currently extremely widespread.

The old "we can't eliminate every pathogen ever, so why bother limiting it" is such bogus logic. "We can't prevent every single accident, so why bother having seat belts?"
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,909
1,125
118
Country
USA
Who says that? Do you think it's realistic to eliminate every pathogen from the population that would be harmful to people with compromised immune systems?
Why do you think that's an excuse for deliberately over-looking one very preventable problem?
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,978
324
88
I think its realistic to lower the risk as much as is practicable to protect them, yes, particularly if something is currently extremely widespread.

The old "we can't eliminate every pathogen ever, so why bother limiting it" is such bogus logic. "We can't prevent every single accident, so why bother having seat belts?"
That is why they have taken all these drastic measures and lockdowns haven't they? To primarily protect those most at risk and reduce the infection rate? A year later and there are now vaccines so those most at risk can be immunized. But the bar keeps on getting raised. Now there must be absolutely no one with risk of infection or death from covid. When infact this criteria isn't utilized for any other kind of sickness or disease.

Your comparison with seatbelts makes no sense. A more apt comparison would be; traffic accidents happen so let's shut down every traffic. Something they also don't do. A certain margin of risk is unavoidable. Even living as a sealed off vegetable in a sterilized room wouldn't free you from the risks of malignant growths or ruptured blood vessels.

Like I said, people die by the shitload from heart and coronary diseases directly related to unhealthy lifestyles yet no one gives a shit. If public health is really such a concern maybe focus on the biggest killer first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,005
118
Country
Sweden
Any infection can kill someone who is immuno-compromised. For someone with advanced HIV/aids or someone who recently had an organ transplant it is particularly unsafe to go outside anyway b/c you're always exposed to pathogens. It's impossible to immunize everybody against every conceivable infection so I don't see what makes covid so unique in that regard. It's benign for like 99% of the population. Scientists also declared covid endemic so it's not like it will ever go away either.
I love it when people without medical schooling talk about medicine like they know exactly what's what. The Dunning-Kruger effect can be a great source of amusement.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,343
430
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
How do you have the nerve to write this? Where do you get your bullshit from? Do you just make it up?

There's a 141-page document (not including references and appendices) from 2016 covering Vitamin D in musculoskeletal health and also: pregnancy and lactation, cancers, cardiovascular disease and hypertension, all cause mortality, immune modulation, infectious diseases, neuropsychological function, oral health, and macular degeneration. Plus there have been a couple of minor updates since.
From the official fucking NHS website and all their messaging. I'm sorry that I forgot muscle health... It's not like we have studies showing taking vitamin d is as much as 6 times more effective against the flu than getting the yearly vaccine, oh but we actually do have those.

Vitamin D helps regulate the amount of calcium and phosphate in the body.

These nutrients are needed to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy.

A lack of vitamin D can lead to bone deformities such as rickets in children, and bone pain caused by a condition called osteomalacia in adults.

Important: Coronavirus (COVID-19) update:
It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.

You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.

There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of COVID-19. But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat COVID-19.



Report from an academic conference presentation about a US hospital. 33% of covid-19 hospitalisations in the study were within 3 days of symptom onset, 27% after one week. Beats your unsourced anecdote by a lot.
It's not unsourced, I literally provided the source. And how does that beat it. 33% within 3 days, 27% after one week, then obviously the biggest amount, 40% between those 2 points.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish? I have said many, many times that the evidence against remdesivir being effective is now very strong.

I'm defending the principle of why it was trialled and that (under emergency circumstances) there was data to justify its approval, not that it works.
I'm still seeing money as the main reason. Everything they've thrown remdesivir at before hasn't worked either. It's an antiviral that should be administered early and as outpatient but it has to be given as inpatient treatment, it costs a lot, and the supply was limited. It didn't have really anything going for it as far as effectiveness on other viruses or the logistics of it. And if other SAFER and more readily available drugs were held up to the same standards of proof as remdesivir, they would have been approved to. I don't know how anyone would agree that there isn't double standards here.

In the scientific literature, obviously. Seriously, google something like "study ivermectin covid-19" and start looking. And don't just pick out the ones that say what you want.
So, where's this better quality evidence that says it doesn't work that you said there was?

Yes, because many governments are otherwise unable to control covid-19 and want to be seen to be doing something by an upset populace. As a bunch of numpties spread rumours that ivermectin works, it makes people clamour for that probably useless drug, and so it's cheap and easy for politicians to seem responsive and let them have it. See also hydroxychloroquine.
Philippines seems very wary of ivermectin but they keep adding more hospitals to the short list that can use it. And, again, it has a better chance than remdesivir.

Who cares? Give it to them and be done with. There is no means to force anyone to take a vaccine, so if the anti-vaxxers squeal they can stop their little darlings having the jab. Other than that, go forth and vaccinate because it is just the most sensible thing to do. If you've got a problem with that, you are in essence an anti-vaxxer.
I have an issue giving kids something we've never given them ever in history. Plus, these vaccines are emergency use authorization. And you don't have to vaccinate people that were already infected. There's no reason to mandate vaccines for something around half the population already got.

Herd immunity is simply the point that new infections should go down naturally. However, that doesn't mean people magically stop being infected the minute herd immunity is reached. The more people immune the better the protection, the fewer people get infected in mini outbreaks and the faster they die out.
Yeah, we're at it now already.

Waffle. None of this is answering the fact that your claims are empty.
You never even looked at them.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,343
430
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male


What a clusterfuck. I can imagine if places start tossing mask mandates we’ll see another big uptick in cases, because up to now we’ve been told vaccination doesn’t automatically mean free and clear, especially with new strains floating around. Also kids are a large swath of possible carriers that aren’t cleared for vaccinations. Which begs another question: what the hell kind of vaccine is it that isn’t safe for kids let alone babies like pretty much any other one.
Just look at Texas that removed all restrictions over 2 months ago, their cases didn't go up. We're at herd immunity already. In the US, historically we've only mandated kids to get vaccines for diseases that disproportionately affect them and covid does not disproportionately affect them. Kids are naturally able to fight covid extremely well already that by giving them vaccines, that will actually cause more total harm from side effects than them possibly getting covid (which keeps dropping everyday). Kids are just developing the ACE2 receptors that covid uses for infection, thus they don't really get sick and they also don't spread it much at all because less viral replication obviously. Vaccinate the high-risk kids but that's about all you'd have to do.

If they really want to improve public health then governments should whip people into shape. Exercise, lose weight, extra taxes on sugar/fat etc, promoting healthy diets etc. It's free and it actually helps people but no they rather fill the pockets of Pfizer etc with billions of dollars just to protract this 'pandemic' ad infinitum.
Yeah, sugar kills so many people, it's not even funny. Sugar still killed far more people last year than coronavirus. Sugar is basically a very slow-acting poison. I literally only drink a bottle of tea (with some sugar) a week, then use that bottle for water the rest of the week and that all because I know how deadly sugar is. I used to drink nothing but pop as a kid too.

Missing the point that they can still spread it to others. Vaccines aren't just about your own personal protection, they protect everyone else at the same time. How many times does this need to be explained?
Children rarely spread it because it doesn't replicate much in them because of the lack of ACE2 receptors.

And the people who are immuno-compromised and can't get the vaccine? Fuck 'em?

And for fuck's sake, the side effects are about 48 hours of flu-like symptoms. It's not like one of those boner pills advertised on TV with side effects including diarrhea, nausea, internal hemorrhaging and lycanthropy. Don't be difficult.
Children spread the flu way more and that can kill at risk people. At risk people always had to be careful like not working in a school and whatnot. These vaccines are still emergency authorized only. We've never forced kids to get vaccinated for something like this before in our history. Childrens' risk to at-risk people from covid is very low, especially now with such low community transmission and it's only getting lower.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,909
1,125
118
Country
USA
Children rarely spread it because it doesn't replicate much in them because of the lack of ACE2 receptors.
Forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it.

Children spread the flu way more and that can kill at risk people. At risk people always had to be careful like not working in a school and whatnot. These vaccines are still emergency authorized only. We've never forced kids to get vaccinated for something like this before in our history. Childrens' risk to at-risk people from covid is very low, especially now with such low community transmission and it's only getting lower.
Again, not gonna take your word for it. I would prefer to hear from somebody with an actual medical education rather than someone relying on YT to dictate their opinions to them. "We've never vaccinated kids like this before!" Yes, we fucking have. How do you think the polio vaccine got developed?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,343
430
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I think its realistic to lower the risk as much as is practicable to protect them, yes, particularly if something is currently extremely widespread.

The old "we can't eliminate every pathogen ever, so why bother limiting it" is such bogus logic. "We can't prevent every single accident, so why bother having seat belts?"
And the chances of a kid spreading covid to someone is what again? Even in the midst of the pandemic it was pretty low and now with community transmission so low and only getting lower. When the vaccines are shown to be safe for kids (which they aren't yet), this is all gonna be a mute point because the risk of this happening is gonna be so small that there's no need to vaccinate kids anyway. We can save probably every single life taken in a traffic accident by lowering the speed limit everywhere to like 10 mph but we don't do that. People accept risk all the time.

Forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it.



Again, not gonna take your word for it. I would prefer to hear from somebody with an actual medical education rather than someone relying on YT to dictate their opinions to them. "We've never vaccinated kids like this before!" Yes, we fucking have. How do you think the polio vaccine got developed?
The actual study discussed: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778940
In conclusion, our study’s findings suggest that children aged 0 to 9 years did not have substantial rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection during school attendance periods, and it may be assumed that they did not have a substantial role in COVID-19 spread either during this period. Therefore, resuming school for this age group when lockdown was released appears to have been safe for them.

That's consistent with tons of other school studies, there's so much real world data out there because tons of places had schools open through the pandemic. Do you own research, it's really not that hard. It seems like high school may be the point where kids do start increasing spread. And kids 12 and older are allowed to get vaccines so why do other kids need to get the vaccine?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,343
430
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
We've never before in history given kids vaccinations? Are you fucking serious?
We've never forced kids to get vaccines for a disease that doesn't disproportionately affect them ever in history. Also, the vaccine isn't approved for kids and it is still only approved for EMERGENCY. Why would you want to force kids to get this vaccine under these conditions?
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
1,909
1,125
118
Country
USA
We've never forced kids to get vaccines for a disease that doesn't disproportionately affect them ever in history. Also, the vaccine isn't approved for kids and it is still only approved for EMERGENCY. Why would you want to force kids to get this vaccine under these conditions?
Because we're living in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic and the vaccines have passed all the required safety tests.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,508
623
118
Country
United States
We've never forced kids to get vaccines for a disease that doesn't disproportionately affect them ever in history.

Can you please, for the love of God, stop making objectively incorrect statements particularly when they're so easy to disprove?

HPV, Hepatitis B, and Tetanus don't "disproportionately affect" children, but vaccines for all three are part of the standard Birth-18 years vaccine regimen. Every state in the US has a childhood Hep B vaccine mandate and a childhood TDAP vaccine mandate to attend school; the HPV vaccine has started becoming mandatory in some states as well.

 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,343
430
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Can you please, for the love of God, stop making objectively incorrect statements particularly when they're so easy to disprove?

HPV, Hepatitis B, and Tetanus don't "disproportionately affect" children, but vaccines for all three are part of the standard Birth-18 years vaccine regimen. Every state in the US has a childhood Hep B vaccine mandate and a childhood TDAP vaccine mandate to attend school; the HPV vaccine has started becoming mandatory in some states as well.

Tetanus I think is a given for why kids would be disproportionately affected because they are kids...

For Hepatitis B: The younger the person, the greater the likelihood of staying infected with hepatitis B and having life-long liver problems. These can include scarring of the liver and liver cancer.

For HPV: CDC recommends ages 11-12 and as early as 9.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,309
3,409
118
Since when has absolutely zero risk become a realistic expectation in life?
You, and many other people like you, really need to stop for a moment and think just how incredibly stupid this argument is.

If we follow your argument, why bother with pedestrian crossings or seatbelts and airbags? I mean, people are going to get run over or die in car crashes one way or the other, why bother with efforts to mitigate it? Life isn't risk-free. People are going die in building fires anyway, so what's the point in fire escapes and evacuation drills? You argue yourself we should try to make people exercise more and eat more carefully. But why bother? Life is not risk free, and people are going to die of heart attacks and thromboembolism anyway. Why bother making us all pay for sewers? Why add fluoride to tap water? There is literally nothing at all designed for our health and safety that is immune from this argument. That is why it is a profoundly absurd argument.

Why should any child be hospitalised or die of a readily preventable illness, given it costs society effectively nothing and the child so little inconvenience to prevent? The cost to give every child in the UK a covid-19 jab can be as cheap as £50 million (depending on which they get). That would potentially even save money, given the hospitalisations required from covid-19 and covid-19 associated complications in children alone, never mind the indirect harm from them helping spread infection.

So let's be clear here, this is basically just anti-vaxxer bullshit. It might be a mild/weak variant rather than the full-on, drunk-the-Kool-aid, Bill Gates injecting a microchip, anti-vaxxer bullshit, but anti-vaxxer bullshit it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,309
3,409
118
From the official fucking NHS website and all their messaging.
Well, maybe you need to do some proper research instead of just grabbing the easist website you can find that supplies dumbed-down shit for the general populace so they can make sense of it. Particularly when you go around claiming you have some sort of scientifically-derived viewpoint.

The UK government updated it's vitamin D recommendations in 2016, plus two updates in 2020, the first (June) looking at acute respiratory tract infections generally with additional data 2016-2020 and the second (December) specifically on covid-19.

It's not unsourced, I literally provided the source. And how does that beat it. 33% within 3 days, 27% after one week, then obviously the biggest amount, 40% between those 2 points.
You mean that graph? That's not a source, that's a random picture of unclear provenance.

I'm still seeing money as the main reason. Everything they've thrown remdesivir at before hasn't worked either. It's an antiviral that should be administered early and as outpatient but it has to be given as inpatient treatment, it costs a lot, and the supply was limited. It didn't have really anything going for it as far as effectiveness on other viruses or the logistics of it. And if other SAFER and more readily available drugs were held up to the same standards of proof as remdesivir, they would have been approved to. I don't know how anyone would agree that there isn't double standards here.
:cry: wah wah wah remdesivir wah :cry:

Move on.

Philippines seems very wary of ivermectin but they keep adding more hospitals to the short list that can use it.
Maybe they think it would be useful to do some studies, rather than hand it out like candy and destroy any chance of doing so.

And, again, it has a better chance than remdesivir.
He says, on the basis of approximately nothing.

I have an issue giving kids something we've never given them ever in history. Plus, these vaccines are emergency use authorization. And you don't have to vaccinate people that were already infected. There's no reason to mandate vaccines for something around half the population already got.
I hate to break it to you, but literally every medical treatment on the planet has to be given to someone for the first time at some point.

You never even looked at them.
And I say again, you haven't given me enough reason to.

This is a bit like Russell's teapot. It is your burden to make your claim credible. The effort you can expect of someone to refute it corresponds to the quality of your argument. You have been told what the critical flaws in your claim are, so you need to go fix them.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,508
623
118
Country
United States
Tetanus I think is a given for why kids would be disproportionately affected because they are kids...
Your personal feelings on a topic aren't evidence. Please source that children are disproportionately affected by tetanus.

For Hepatitis B: The younger the person, the greater the likelihood of staying infected with hepatitis B and having life-long liver problems. These can include scarring of the liver and liver cancer.
What's the likelihood of a child being affected by Hep B? Does a somewhat (again, you've conveniently not actually provided a source) worse likelihood of an outcome mean it's disproportional to how it affects adults? How much greater is it? +0.00000001% is a higher likelihood; it's not a disproportionally higher one though.

For HPV: CDC recommends ages 11-12 and as early as 9.
So kids... exactly who you've repeatedly stated "we've never done this for"