Is someone justified in harassing someone to tell them if they got vaccinated or not?

[DesiDani]

Say you got vaccinated and choose not to stand in the middle of the street to tell the world. Yet friend or coworker keeps nagging you to tell them if you did or not 

[guest1178273]

7 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I feel like I was pretty clear that of the various reasons someone may not get vaccinated, lacking empathy for others was a subgroup, not the entire group, there were even bullet points to make that more clear.  If you disagree that some people may choose not to get vaccinated because protecting others isn't enough of an incentive, then feel free to contest that, but please don't intentionally misinterpret what I've said.

There isn't enough long-term efficacy data yet to complete the approval process, but they aren't still waiting to see if vaccination is beneficial, that's been well established.

VAERS are not reports of adverse reactions, it's a wide net system that tracks all health events that occur in the months after vaccination to potentially detect adverse reactions.

I didn't intentionally misinterpret anything. I saw your bullet points. They were clear. I was clear, too. I said being hesitant doesn't make someone "amoral". That's pretty much the gist.

"VAERS are not reports of adverse reactions"

Um, VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Reporting System. I know what VAERS is. I'm not saying everything reported is factual. I know that it is a system that helps the CDC track adverse events. And plenty have been reported after having received the COVID vaccine. 

 

 

[JKL33]

2 hours ago, underpressure said:

Um, VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Reporting System.

The 'E'  is important and that's the distinction that was being made. Event, as opposed to reaction.

Quote

VAERS encourages the reporting of any significant adverse event occurring after the administration of any vaccine licensed in the United States.

To use the term reaction is to declare a direct link between the event and the vaccination. I think they didn't call it VARRS instead of VAERS because that is a determination that would come after further investigation. Instead, the reporting system is meant for anyone to simply report that something happened.

[guest1178273]

7 hours ago, JKL33 said:

The 'E'  is important and that's the distinction that was being made. Event, as opposed to reaction.

To use the term reaction is to declare a direct link between the event and the vaccination. I think they didn't call it VARRS instead of VAERS because that is a determination that would come after further investigation. Instead, the reporting system is meant for anyone to simply report that something happened.

Thanks for clarifying that I left the word "event" out of my response, but I did not put the word "reaction" in its place. I do understand what you're saying though, and that makes perfect sense. I think some people might think an "event" is fairly synonymous with the word "reaction", even though technically, it's not a formal correlation. I do understand that.

[toomuchbaloney]

5 minutes ago, underpressure said:

Thanks for clarifying that I left the word "event" out of my response, but I did not put the word "reaction" in its place. I do understand what you're saying though, and that makes perfect sense. I think some people might think an "event" is fairly synonymous with the word "reaction", even though technically, it's not a formal correlation. I do understand that.

If you actually understand you will stop isolating specific complaints in VAERS and elevating them as evidence of adverse effect and need for concern. 

[JKL33]

45 minutes ago, underpressure said:

I think some people might think an "event" is fairly synonymous with the word "reaction", even though technically, it's not a formal correlation.

You got it.

I would only specify that it isn't a technicality (as in, where words are being disingenuously twisted) but rather a distinction that is imperative to the proper understanding what VAERS is and isn't.

I've talked with some people who have looked at me a little sideways when I start explaining that these are reports of things that happened "following vaccination" and shouldn't automatically be understood to be more than that. But there's nothing sneaky or crooked or underhanded in that explanation.

Now I'm being facetious (and I certainly would never use this attempt at explanation on a patient) but technically if you get hit in the eye with falling bird crap on the way out of the clinic after your vaccine there's nothing stopping you from reporting that to VAERS. Although VAERS is a very useful tool, it is simply a collection of reports. "Something happened." Although there are guidelines for providers as far as basic things that should be reported, additional reports are welcome and their submission is not limited to people with any specialized knowledge; the tool is purposely meant to be used by anyone.

Understanding of VAERS goes right along with evaluating anything in medicine/healthcare. If a patient always gets better from a basic URI after they take Z-Pak is that because they are special and don't recover from viral URIs without taking antibiotics or is it because they were going to recover from their viral illness in about the same time-frame anyway? These are the things many people don't think about. And -unfortunately- it's something that people kinda don't want to think about after they thought they had recognized some other pattern. But at the end of the day it's the classic "correlation does not equal causation." VAERS is not meant to be taken as a list of things caused by vaccines but rather a collection of reports of things that happened sometime after vaccination.

If you know patients or just people in general, you understand how personal reports are kind of a double-edged sword so-to-speak. Useful but inherently problematic.

[guest1178273]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

If you actually understand you will stop isolating specific complaints in VAERS and elevating them as evidence of adverse effect and need for concern. 

I didn't say they were evidence. I didn't isolate specific complaints in VAERS. In fact, I specifically said I knew that all reports weren't factual. I only said there are a lot of people reporting adverse events. This, TO ME, my opinion, please take it or leave it, is concerning and worth paying attention to. That is not fear mongering. It's saying "pay attention, proceed with caution". You disagree. That's OK. You can come post again that your opinion is that it's fear mongering. I will ignore you. It's your opinion, and you won't change my mind about it. 

[guest1178273]

1 hour ago, JKL33 said:

You got it.

I would only specify that it isn't a technicality (as in, where words are being disingenuously twisted) but rather a distinction that is imperative to the proper understanding what VAERS is and isn't.

I've talked with some people who have looked at me a little sideways when I start explaining that these are reports of things that happened "following vaccination" and shouldn't automatically be understood to be more than that. But there's nothing sneaky or crooked or underhanded in that explanation.

Now I'm being facetious (and I certainly would never use this attempt at explanation on a patient) but technically if you get hit in the eye with falling bird crap on the way out of the clinic after your vaccine there's nothing stopping you from reporting that to VAERS. Although VAERS is a very useful tool, it is simply a collection of reports. "Something happened." Although there are guidelines for providers as far as basic things that should be reported, additional reports are welcome and their submission is not limited to people with any specialized knowledge; the tool is purposely meant to be used by anyone.

Understanding of VAERS goes right along with evaluating anything in medicine/healthcare. If a patient always gets better from a basic URI after they take Z-Pak is that because they are special and don't recover from viral URIs without taking antibiotics or is it because they were going to recover from their viral illness in about the same time-frame anyway? These are the things many people don't think about. And -unfortunately- it's something that people kinda don't want to think about after they thought they had recognized some other pattern. But at the end of the day it's the classic "correlation does not equal causation." VAERS is not meant to be taken as a list of things caused by vaccines but rather a collection of reports of things that happened sometime after vaccination.

If you know patients or just people in general, you understand how personal reports are kind of a double-edged sword so-to-speak. Useful but inherently problematic.

I understand what you're saying and agree completely. I just think that so many reports aren't to be dismissed offhand and chalked up to something as random as the bird poop in the eye scenario. Some reasonable percentage of those VAERS reports probably are related to the COVID vaccine. Does it mean no one should get the vaccine? No, I'm not saying that either. Not at all. I know whoever reads my posts thinks I'm vehemently opposed to the vaccine, which is also not true. I'm just saying I've seen enough red flags that make me want more information. This apparently makes some people (they know who they are) apoplectic which I can not control, but anyway, I appreciate your rational responses. 

[toomuchbaloney]

26 minutes ago, underpressure said:

I didn't say they were evidence. I didn't isolate specific complaints in VAERS. In fact, I specifically said I knew that all reports weren't factual. I only said there are a lot of people reporting adverse events. This, TO ME, my opinion, please take it or leave it, is concerning and worth paying attention to. That is not fear mongering. It's saying "pay attention, proceed with caution". You disagree. That's OK. You can come post again that your opinion is that it's fear mongering. I will ignore you. It's your opinion, and you won't change my mind about it. 

I'm not trying to change your mind.  If your mind was changeable based upon facts and reason you would have changed it long ago, IMV.  I'm countering every suggestion that people should be concerned about what they see reported in VAERS. 

[guest1178273]

2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I'm not trying to change your mind.  If your mind was changeable based upon facts and reason you would have changed it long ago, IMV.  I'm countering every suggestion that people should be concerned about what they see reported in VAERS. 

?‍♀️ OK then

[toomuchbaloney]

19 minutes ago, underpressure said:

I understand what you're saying and agree completely. I just think that so many reports aren't to be dismissed offhand and chalked up to something as random as the bird poop in the eye scenario. Some reasonable percentage of those VAERS reports probably are related to the COVID vaccine. Does it mean no one should get the vaccine? No, I'm not saying that either. Not at all. I know whoever reads my posts thinks I'm vehemently opposed to the vaccine, which is also not true. I'm just saying I've seen enough red flags that make me want more information. This apparently makes some people (they know who they are) apoplectic which I can not control, but anyway, I appreciate your rational responses. 

You are not qualified to suggest to the general public that there is reason to raise red flags about any of these vaccines because of VAERS. It is tantamount to fear mongering to suggest that there is something there that could be a suggestion of something bad. If there were sound reasons to be concerned, the accountable experts in the field would raise the red flags because that's their job and they are responsible and credible professionals. 

Why do you want people to feel concern rather than confidence in these vaccines when the scientific evidence to date supports confidence?

[toomuchbaloney]

4 minutes ago, underpressure said:

?‍♀️ OK then

Gee...where's the rational response that argues that the general public is equipped to infer ANYTHING from the VAERS database...aren't you going to support your stance?

[guest1178273]

11 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You are not qualified to suggest to the general public that there is reason to raise red flags about any of these vaccines because of VAERS. It is tantamount to fear mongering to suggest that there is something there that could be a suggestion of something bad. If there were sound reasons to be concerned, the accountable experts in the field would raise the red flags because that's their job and they are responsible and credible professionals. 

Why do you want people to feel concern rather than confidence in these vaccines when the scientific evidence to date supports confidence?

You don't need any type of qualification to be concerned about adverse effects people are having to the covid vaccine. But if you want to keep talking about qualifications, I'd say you're not qualified to suggest otherwise. 

It is tantamount to fear mongering to suggest that there is something there that could be a suggestion of something bad. Here's where we disagree. I call it being cautious. 

Why do you want people to feel concern rather than confidence in these vaccines when the scientific evidence to date supports confidence?  I actually do want people to feel confidence in the scientific evidence. I want to feel confidence in it, too, but there's not enough long term evidence in my opinion. I've already said this. But you can keep asking me the same questions if that's how you enjoy spending your retirement.

18 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Gee...where's the rational response that argues that the general public is equipped to infer ANYTHING from the VAERS database...aren't you going to support your stance?

Apparently you don't think ANYONE  is qualified/equipped to infer anything. What do you think is the purpose of VAERS then? Who is it for if not the general public?