Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

[NeuroTypical]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why have we continued to tell people they MUST get the shot even if they have had the disease?

Well, depends on who you mean by "we".  I'm not telling anyone they MUST get the shot.  I'm thinking it's a good idea for an awful lot of people to get the shot.  The older you are, the more comorbidities you have, the more you SHOULD get the shot.

It's a good idea for these folks because immunity (even the better immunity you get from actually having it) decreases over time, and the 'less than super immunity' you get from the shot, continues to be effective at decreasing severity/duration of the bad things that covid brings.   It's absolutely a life and health saver.

Does anything there not make sense?

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, depends on who you mean by "we".  I'm not telling anyone they MUST get the shot.  I'm thinking it's a good idea for an awful lot of people to get the shot.  The older you are, the more comorbidities you have, the more you SHOULD get the shot.

It's a good idea for these folks because immunity (even the better immunity you get from actually having it) decreases over time, and the 'less than super immunity' you get from the shot, continues to be effective at decreasing severity/duration of the bad things that covid brings.   It's absolutely a life and health saver.

Does anything there not make sense?

I mean "we" as in the Unites States Society in general.  The medical establishment.  Politicians.  

Even if we are not in a situation with mandates, there is still TREMENDOUS social pressure to continue getting the shot (as I pointed out with the story of my daughter in California).  Has NYC removed the requirement for healhtcare workers to get the shot?  I haven't heard.

Various businesses also have a lot of the mentality programmed into them.  Remote work (long conversations about that).

The one thing that doesn't make sense in your post is the level of credit you're giving the vaccine vs. the lack of credit to natural immunity.

• I don't know of any studies which show SUFFICIENT protection against the virus (especially the recent strains) to want that benefit vs the risks (which you also have not addressed).  It's a cost/benefits analysis.  And it isn't looking convincing.
• Natural immunity has been found (per the links I provided) to be HIGHLY effective even after 40 weeks.
• You seem to have this attitude of "well, it can't hurt."  -- No. ANY medical intervention has some risks.  And I don't have confidence that these past few years have been open and honest enough to truly discern what the risks are.  So, if the best argument you can give is "it can't hurt," -- I disagree.

If you're dehydrated, you want to slowly drink some water.  And you ONLY drink enough to get to normal levels.  Over-doing it is the road to water intoxication.  I am unware of any vaccine that has been given to so many people at such frequency and quantities as this vaccine.  We have nothing to compare it to.  We have no way of knowing what happens when you get the same vaccine this often.

I'm not "anti-vax".  I just don't see the need to get a vaccine if it isn't all that serious a disease.  If someone is in a high risk group, then they should go ahead and get the shot.  But tell me I need to get it because I could spread it to someone else who is in a high risk group?  It doesn't work that way.

At the beginning, I considered this under the same umbrella as other vaccines -- with the sole exception that it is a new technology.  As such, it should be looked at with a "small" amount of skepticism. 

But then we keep noticing how Fauci, the CDC, medical boards, and so many politicians got EVERYTHING wrong.

• They said masks will prevent spread.  They don't.
• They said the vaccine will prevent transmission.  It does not.  As in zero. Not just low levels.  Zero.
• They said that it is more effective than natural immunity.  It is nowhere near as effective.
• They (the Lancet) said Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work as a treatment.  Then retracted that statement because they found the study/reasoning to be biased.  But doctors were having their licenses revoked because they prescribed it to COVID patients.  THIS could have saved tens of millions of lives if not hundreds of millions.  But the band marched on.
• They said the vaccine is effective against variant strains.  It has been found to have LOW efficacy against variants.
• They said that monoclonal antibodies will not work.  They did.  They REALLY worked.
• They said it didn't originate in a lab.  It did.
• They said that they didn't do any gain of function research.  They did.
• All of this was said in MAINSTREAM MEDIA really quickly and made sure they never mentioned it again as they kept pushing the vaccine.
• Deaths from COVID vs with COVID.

Do you see why I refuse to simply accept what the medical establishment has "promised" is better for us?

A lot of this can be boiled down to this philosophy regarding new technology or any "new norm".  Any old belief (whether right or wrong) holds the high ground.  It takes a LOT to prove that

• The old way is incorrect or needs to be modified,
• AND that the new way is better.

Old philosophies of immunity were being ignored without the mountain of proof that is normally required to go a new direction.  I think it was fine to approve the new vaccine as an emergency use.  But why the mandates for said new technology.  And I still don't know why the J&J vaccine was not approved.  I didn't see anything in the news about it.  Why wasn't a more traditional vaccine pushed?  I would have been MUCH more willing to accept that mandate than for a new technology that doesn't have 100 yrs of track record.

Too many things they got wrong that had HUGE impacts.  Too many questions with no satisfying answers.

[NeuroTypical]

I get that you've got a lot of passion on the subject Carb, but just about everything you just said doesn't really have much to do with me.  I joined the Moderna phase III trial, but I'm hardly a VaxOrGetFired stormtrooper or Faucci apologist.  Good luck finding someone similarly passionate on the other end of these fences with which to argue!   I'm not being dismissive, there'll be plenty of ALL CAPS things to shout at each other for a decade.   I find the recent news from the Department of Energy giving tentative support to the lab leak, especially notable. 

 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I get that you've got a lot of passion on the subject Carb, but just about everything you just said doesn't really have much to do with me.  

Believe it or not, I recognize that.

But when you essentially called me crazy for my concerns earlier, it seemed that you really didn't have any concerns about the establishment line.

At the beginning, I only had caution.  Later, I started having questions.  Later, I noticed all the lies.  I say lies because if they were simply "mistakes" they would have corrected themselves when new information came in.  Instead, they doubled down.

Then when I noticed just how many things they got wrong were revealed even by mainstream media to be false...  Well, what am I supposed to think?

[Carborendum]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64848106

British Health Minister (in 2020) asks when to "deploy the next variant" of COVID to "scare the pants off" of anti-lockdown citizens.

Upon release, he didn't even deny he said it. (The paper trail was pretty clear).  He simply said

Quote

There is absolutely no public interest case for this huge breach.

What goes through the minds of some people?

[Carborendum]

File this under: Why does this even matter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha8bHR35iE4

It start with a rather inconsequential question:  Did the virus came from a lab or from nature?

Fauci knew it was from a lab.  He bribed people to say it was from nature.  And he blacklisted people who said otherwise.  Why would he do that?  It didn't matter.  Why push so hard for just one side?

For the sake of saving lives and treating the disease, it really doesn't make a difference.  So, why did Fauci push so hard?  Why was social media weaponized to blacklist people who disagreed?

Testimony from Dr Redfield (Head of CDC and Coronavirus Task Force at the time these events occurred) corroborating the sequence of events.

• A CDC rep (Dr. Anderson) emails Fauci stating "The virus looks like it was engineered in a lab. It looks unlikely to have occurred in nature."
• Dr Gary (from the CDC) sends Fauci an email saying "I don't know how this happens in nature.  But it would be easy to do in a lab."
• A conference call occurred between these two doctors and Fauci.
• Then these two doctors changed their positions.  Now, there was no evidence that it came from a lab.  It must have come from nature.
• Three months later, these two doctors both received $9 Million from Fauci.

Gee, no new evidence between those dates.  And 3 months later, $9 Million.  Why?

Again, why on earth did this even matter?

When they lie about the most basic facts, how can we really trust anything they say at all?

It doesn't matter?  It certainly mattered to Fauci.  I'd like to know why.  I can't figure out if the $9 MM was the total between them or if it was $9 MM each.  Either way, that's a chunk of change.  What was so important that this much money changed hands to lie to the American People?

[mikbone]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Why does this even matter?

[Carborendum]