clwnuke

Were the previous replies and links helpful? If you are looking for more detailed research methodologies and clinical discussions I can try to post more information. Let me know. One of the most frustrating aspects of this pandemic has been the non-stop change in recommendations and guidance. IMHO the "experts" should be far more cautious in their declarations rather than reverse course constantly. Stay safe out there!

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/08/evidence-mounts-that-people-with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily "The Wisconsin study analysed the nasal swabs from 719 cases of unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people who had all tested positive and found that 68 percent of the studied breakthrough patients had very high viral loads. High viral load is a sign that the virus is replicating, Gupta says. To discover whether the nasal swabs had infectious virus, the Wisconsin researchers grew virus from 55 patient samples (from both vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive) in special cells prone to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Grande’s team detected infectious virus in nearly everyone: from 88 percent of unvaccinated individuals and 95 percent of vaccinated people." "If vaccinated people can still produce a lot of infectious viruses, it means they can spread the virus as easily as those who are not vaccinated."

Closer to home, my Stake and Ward are monitoring COVID cases by month. Since I maintain that report from our ward I can anecdotally say for certain that the fully vaccinated individuals are about 70% of our current reported case load for July and August

I'll post something more detailed in response when I can, but the numbers game comes down to the larger number of vaccinated people who are knowingly or unknowingly experiencing a transmissible breakthrough infection versus the minority of unvaccinated people experiencing a transmissible infection. It was previously assumed that the risk of breakthrough infection for fully vaccinated people was much smaller, and that their viral load would be much smaller as well. Most people heard those numbers first. However, the recent change in the CDC's masking guidance (about three-four weeks ago) was prompted by field research that found a much higher transmission rate among fully vaccinated groups (first in the NorthEast, but then everywhere including other countries), and viral load magnitudes similar to unvaccinated people, even in asymptomatic infections. Hence, while vaccinated people are unlikely to experience hospitalization, they are a potent transmission vector while experiencing symptomatic or unsymptomatic breakthrough infections. They also happen to be the majority of people resulting in the current statistics. The wild card in this particular discussion is what about the group of people that have had Covid, but are not vaccinated? In which group do they belong? I believe most researchers are classifying them in the breakthrough infection group for the most part. Perhaps they should be treated separately?

Statistically, the most significant transmission vector of COVID right now in the USA and world, are fully vaccinated people. Yes, it's a numbers game, but a careful unvaccinated person like myself is far more likely to be infected by a vaccinated person than a non-vaccinated. To some degree, we have always accepted the risk of others possibly carrying contagious diseases. I am considered a critical employee so I have been under very strict guidelines this whole time, but I would not blame anyone who exposed me unintentionally - vaccinated or unvaccinated. Interestingly, I also donate platelets and blood regularly. My friends at the donation center would be thrilled if I caught COVID and recovered so they could harvest my antibodies! Unfortunately, the only antibodies that can be harvested are from unvaccinated people so they like my current status.

It would be nice to actually have the data that was used for approval available to the public for review. But it is not. Pfizer submitted six months of data, without a controlled placebo group (they unblinded the study early on), but not a single page of it has been reviewed by independent experts. The FDA chose to skip the normal process of public hearings and independent review and proceed to approval. By training (and by my nature) I am skeptical of decisions made without transparency, but I still hope for the best rather than the worst.

I'm grateful for everyone who has exercised common sense to limit their exposure, but I do occasionally call hypocrisy on some of the Vazis who are shaming the unvaccinated, but who haven't bothered to shed a single pound of their obesity during the entire pandemic despite it being the #1 comorbidity associated with COVID deaths.

That's pretty much why I've been pondering my question of responsibility. Say for instance that it is determined later that the mRNA vaccines result in some complication that was not disclosed or caught previously. Who's responsible? Would some of the members who strongly felt that they needed to follow the Prophet's example possibly blame the FP for their current situation? Or, did people not understand that the statement made clear that it is our responsibility?

I have a question for the collective wisdom of the hive: In the First Presidency's 19 January 2021 statement on vaccination, the following was said "Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination." I've been pondering what would constitute not taking responsibility for one's own decisions about vaccination? If a person says "Well, the Prophet did it so I'm doing it", which category does that fall into? Taking responsibility or not taking responsibility? Did they really make their own decision or are they relying upon the Prophet's decision? Thoughts?

Today I received a report that one of my fully vaccinated brothers in the Elders Quorum who attended Sacrament meeting yesterday was admitted to the hospital this morning and subsequently tested positive for COVID. Fortunately my wife and I had decided to attend virtually rather than cause anyone further concern with our non-vaccinated status (although I did attend Ward Council later, masked and distanced). Unfortunately, we have had to inform all the ward members that they have all been exposed. A good reminder that vaccinated or not, we are all possible transmission vectors.

That was classic! Love it 👍

You make a very important point. The type of mask and whether one wears it correctly makes all the difference for reduction of pathogen transmission. Perhaps I should have said that masks CAN be effective if the proper masks are used correctly. Even if that were the case, the mandates would still be ineffective. I completely agree with your frustration concerning our health leader's Orwellian flip-flopping guidance over this pandemic.

Novavax and/or Covaxin. Novavax is actually the most effective Covid vaccine in the world and is based on protein sub-unit technology, similar to the pertussis vaccine. Covaxin is India's home developed vaccine based upon inactivated whole virus technology. I'm partial to Covaxin but would take either

Then we are of similar mind. As President of the Church I would probably have done the same things they have done, but I have not reached that same spiritual conclusion at this time. I do plan to be vaccinated, but I have to wait for the two vaccines I trust to become available. Thanks for a great discussion!

I mean no offense, but none of that is implied directly or indirectly in the First Presidency's statements. To your other questions - yes, no the decision was left to me, and the First Presidency put no conditions on what was or was not a 'justifiable' decision. Funny, how I had this similar conversation while I was at my pharmacy receiving the second dose of my Shingles vaccine several months ago, and the pharmacist knew so little about virology but was adamant about his feelings that I should get the J&J vaccine. I mentioned that I had been an investor in vaccine development and was very familiar with the approval process that had not been completed for the three available vaccines. I then told him that I would gladly take the Covaxin vaccine when it became available in this country. He didn't even know about it, but that didn't surprise me. He was just parroting what he was reading in mainstream media. Beware of low-knowledge medical personnel recommending what your health care should entail. Medicine is no different than any other profession, there are a few stellar people and the rest are just doing their jobs. Now, how about some fair questions for you - If President Nelson had counseled with Wendy and she had determined that she would not be taking the vaccine, would it have made any difference to President Nelson? Would he have delayed his vaccination in solidarity with her and delayed the First Presidency statement? And, are you certain that there wasn't a delay in issuing the statement for that very reason?

Hence the importance of educating people why mask mandates do not work unless everyone wears them everywhere 24x7. It's natural for people to assume that since masks can reduce transmission while worn, they should therefore reduce case loads. But they don't. You just catch it via another vector at another time is what the data shows us. Strong feelings + understanding will hopefully mitigate the contention.

Absolutely, but with qualifiers that are often neglected. "Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. In making that determination, we recommend that, where possible, they counsel with a competent medical professional about their personal circumstances and needs." That was clear in their January 19, 2021 release. Nothing of substance changed in their recent admonition other than the mention of masks. Church News articles emphasized that President Nelson described how he had counseled with his wife and personal physician prior to making his individual decision to be vaccinated. He expected us to follow the same process, which many church members had already done months before the First Presidency message.

My mindset has not changed. I do not believe the First Presidency intended to make a medical statement when they called the current vaccines safe and effective. Rather I believe they were using language that reflected the thoughts of the current 'mainstream' health leaders in a PR statement addressing the issue.

I have consistently worn my mask as required by my work, and by all governmental mandates long before the First Presidency spoke on the matter. I do this despite knowing that: 1. Masks ARE effective, and 2. Mask mandates are NOT effective. If you search on Google for pre-2019 articles about the effectiveness of mask mandates you will see that there was universal agreement that while masks can reduce pathogen transmission, mask mandates rarely result in meaningful reductions in case load because we do not wear them 24x7. It's a bit like having a bag of black ink in a swimming pool. If you only keep the bag closed while people are in the pool, but open it when they are not, the end result will be a pool full of black ink. Hence, both statements above are true. Below is a graph of three neighboring Southeastern states. One had a mask mandate and the others did not. Can you tell which is which? Nope, and nobody can. It's the same for all states that had mask mandates. You can't tell when the mandates started or see any meaningful reductions in hospitalizations or deaths when you look at the graphs. The pre-2019 science is still true in 2021 and will be going forward. When I was a missionary in Japan long ago there were many people who would wear masks on the trains and in public places, but the medical advice we were given was that it was not necessary because it was not effective overall in reducing case load. Funny how we still see the same results today, but we act as if something has changed. It is these types of sudden changes in the recommended "science" that has reduced confidence in our current health leaders, and unfortunately possibly in those that repeat their false advice even if it is done with good intentions. Nevertheless, I wear my mask at church and in my calling 'religiously' because I'd rather promote unity than fight the battle over the effectiveness of the advice. Answer: In July 2020, Alabama added a statewide mask mandate to its already stringent lockdown measures. Florida and Georgia never had mask mandates. Georgia was decried as an "experiment in human sacrifice" when Governor Kemp lifted lockdown restrictions in April 2020. Despite this, all three states followed the same trajectory.

Some brand new and concerning COVID vaccine information: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext It's a bit of a technical read, but the bottom line is that it appears that the currently approved US vaccines actually result in the production of some antibodies that facilitate infection with the Delta strain of the virus. Luckily for now, the neutralizing antibodies are still eventually overwhelming the facilitating antibodies so vaccinated people are recovering but this is a concern for future variants. This information also helps explain why most vaccinated people will likely get the Delta variant at some point. It also explains why unvaccinated people are statistically more likely to catch COVID from a vaccinated person. Perhaps the vaccinated should stop pointing fingers since they are the greater statistical danger to others?

Just for clarification, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not based on traditional technology. It uses adenovirus vectors to produce spike proteins. It is simply a different version of the same principle behind mRNA vaccines. Novavax and Covaxin are the two vaccines based upon more traditional protein sub-unit and whole virus technologies.

You are probably right, but I can't help but hope when you see statistics like this (as of Aug 5th, 2021) being completely ignored: Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 26 COVID Daily Deaths: 3 The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 127,108 COVID Daily Deaths: 574 Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE: Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 61 COVID Daily Deaths: 2 Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 24 COVID Daily Deaths: 0 Now look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin (like Utah). Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases. Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire. Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 1,997 COVID Daily Deaths: 33

In my view "THOU" shalt not kill, does not include the same restriction on the commandment giver. As the Lord and giver of life, He can call his children back to His presence whenever he deems necessary, and he can order his servants to perform the action of taking it. I believe that in my pre-mortal life I agreed completely to those terms as part of coming to earth.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50223009/dire-straits-doctor-says-morale-in-utah-hospitals-as-low-as-ever-state-reports-897-new-cases The saddest part of Utah's struggles with COVID is that a statewide mandate for Ivermectin use from Governor Cox, and a simple statement of support from trusted leaders for this safe, low-cost, and effective treatment could turn things around in a short time. States in India learned this lesson, but apparently states in America can't. Instead Utah is needlessly tearing itself apart with increasing vaccine mandate pressures. The frontline COVID care doctors that use Ivermectin to treat patients swear by it. Those who don't use it for treatment say it doesn't work. Can't people decide for themselves?

Medical note: On June 25, 2021 Dr. Robert W Malone, MD (a key mRNA technology developer) tweeted that the "U.S. Federal Government doesn't possess the data to calculate transmissibility and thus no vaccination target can foretell 'Herd Immunity'. Then today, Sir Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group stated that it is unlikely that the U.K. can ever achieve herd immunity because variants are easily infecting currently vaccinated people. So, how can both statements be true? Who can contradict the First Presidency once they have spoken? Or, maybe it's not a contradiction as much as a misunderstanding of what they are saying and how it should be applied? I note this not to undermine trust in the First Presidency's statement, but to illustrate that their statements and recommendations can and do change as necessary. In the end, just as the First Presidency initially stated, it is our responsibility to determine our medical care - not theirs. In that light, prayerfully and carefully evaluating your medical decisions and reaching a conclusion to not use mRNA vaccines is indeed as much "following the Prophet", as getting the vaccine if that's the conclusion one reached. Let's not tear our unity apart based on our own interpretations.