10GaugeNeedles

Why did you get 3 doses?

Yeah, the spike protein being stuck on the cell membrane was my first red flag. As an aside, given the low incidence of apparent vaccine injury, I agree with you, it does appear the protein production appears short lived (though it's hard to be certain). All things considered I'm not "afraid"of the vaccine as such. The main reason I don't want it is simply no percieved benefit vs exposing my self to an unnecessary risk. The Jansen is lower risk for men, the mrna lower risk for women so, if forced, I know which I'd choose. As for the symptoms, almost all but not all of my fellow nurses that got the shot about a year ago reported loss of taste and smell (recovered soon after). But that's definitely not common with other vaccines as far as I know. I hadn't heard of the mental illness thing being a risk factor. To me that just hurts the credibility. I mean, it sounds like statistical magic sauce to conclude that. Weird. If there was demonstrated clear evidence of significant benefit, I'd be on board with this. But there's just SO much weirdness, like a disconnect from reports and results. I'm hoping now that delta is starting to burn away this whole thing will eventually blow over. Thanks for your kind and reasonable comments.

This is the biggest misinformation from your side: "get vaxxed or you are risking infecting a bunch of people." This is simply false. After vaccination you are just as likely to spread the virus (possibly a slight decrease since once infected you will likely recover quicker), assuming you carry it, as anyone else. getting vaccinated does not limit spread. Getting vaccinated does not limit spread. Getting vaccinated does not limit spread. This has been stated by the CDC (thus the new recommendation to wear mask even after getting vaccinated). The only benefit I've seen specifically stated by official sources is limiting severe symptoms. This is not measles. This is not polio. The vaccine for this will not irradicate the virus like in the former cases. It mutates. Why are you acting like those who don't agree with you don't know anything? Try listening to the other side for once. You might actually learn something. The risk of vaccine injury is low. Correct. But it's REAL and serious. You dismiss it. Those who have suffered a serious vaccine injury don't matter to you, which is interesting. My risk of covid severe symptoms is low. I may never get infected. That means I have the potential to have ZERO risk. But if I get the vaccine, my risk is artificially higher. Thus the risk benefit in my case is in favor of no vaccine. You do you, I'll do me, we'll see what happens. I have every right to refuse any medical procedure. Period. That is the heart of medical ethics and it still applies whether you like it or not.

Wrong. Not for those with low risk, given the real risks of the vaccine, and those with previous infection: "Prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection. As vaccine supply is limited, patients with known history of COVID-19 could delay early vaccination [or maybe those who recover and remain in the low risk category could rely on their robust post infection immunity alone] to allow for the most vulnerable to access the vaccine and slow transmission." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33718968/ Brackets added by me.

Perhaps logic and common sense can have a conversation with the virus and agree to disagree. LOL Are you are suggesting the virus is equally deadly and dangerous for all people including those with very little risk?

Fair point. My argument stands though. Wrong. Vaccinating is a better option for at -risk populations.

I'm not specifically referencing. I'm generally referencing. So many posts, tweets, videos, etc are being censored and erased. Somebody puts up an anecdotal reports online or many of them, or government panels where people report vaccine injury. These reports are dismissed by those who refuse to accept anything not from official sources. The VAERS data is routinely dismissed at meaningless until official sources rule on it as a significant finding. What is the inclusion criteria to rule in a vaccine injury as legitimate? I can't find anything. And if there's no specific diagnostic criteria to rule in a claim of vaccine injury, how do we know what the actual vaccine injury rate is? Also, for those who do have an injury, what are they going to do about it? "McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said. Her insurance will cover most, but not all of the tab, she said, and she estimates she'll pay up to $7,000 out of pocket." https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/covid-vaccine-injury-claims-mount-recourse-is-lacking-those-harmed-2021-10-19/ Who is to say this person would have every gotten covid, making the vaccine pointless anyway? But she got the Jansen vaccine and ended up with clots that certainly could have been fatal and massive hospital bills (luckily having insurance), something that was entirely avoidable. The potential risks are real and serious. Let's stop pretending "safe and effective" means we should take away pt autonomy. The risk is real. Only the individual should decide if the potential benefit is actually worth that risk.

What, specifically, are you referencing? -see above. Not all people have the same risk of severe symptoms. Many many people have already been infected. Why are these groups required to get vaccinated just like high risk individuals if the purported benefit is a decrease in symptoms?

Yep. Except when they aren't.

Why is Israel on their 4th booster shot if the vaccine is effective? https://www.timesofisrael.com/virus-czar-calls-to-begin-readying-for-eventual-4th-vaccine-dose/ You never qualify. Just "effective". Period. You are wrong. It's effective UNTIL it isn't. Colon powell had cancer. Dies of covid because he had an impaired immune system. It was not effective for him. According to the article above, Israel is saying they will likely be giving boosters in perpetuity. That is not an effective vaccine.

Yeah. Seriously. What in the world difference does it make which country was running the study? Fact is, the faulty article caused the study to shut down. My point was addressing this "trust the science" crap so many people are pushing these days. The cited incident is one very public example of where trusting "the science" had serious negative consequences. Yes the Lancet pulled the article. Good for them. The researchers running the plaquenil study trusted "the science" and ended that study. "The science"was wrong. It would have been nice to have large study of plaquenil to have some early answers about potential therapies don't you think? That is the point I was making. Exactly when do lessons learned no longer matter? When do those lessons expire? Apparently, according to you, anything a year old or older is no longer valid? We were being told to trust the science from the beginning of this pandemic (in case you missed the last 2 years worth of news and government health official's press releases). No. We should not trust anyone. If the science says x=L, and we see evidence that x=I, we are still being told to trust that, still, x=L. If the vaccines are effective, why is Israel on their 4th booster shot? Why are we surprised that a vaccine that produces spike protein from the initial virus is less effective against a variant, yet people are broadly being told to get vaccinated (against the original virus) or get fired? Why are we being told to get vaccinated or else you'll definitely spread the virus when the viral load is the same for vaxxed and unvaxxed (I've seen a wide range of statements about transmission mitigation, but in any case, we are far from a consensus that the vaccine halts transmission)? Why MUST we get vaccinated regardless if we've been infected or not (the only argument I've heard on this is vaccine offers greater antibody production ie "protection")? If I have immunity from the virus, who cares if I got it from a vaccine or infection? Immunity is immunity! Why is a vaccine equally necessary for all people regardless of demographic risk, especially since the main selling point for the vaccine is a decrease in symptoms, RATHER than transmission mitigation? Not all people have the same risk of serious symptoms yet we are mandated equally to get the vaccine. WHY? I could go on. You all can keep pushing the "trust the science" crap for another 5 years. This narrative will not change the fact that many many discontinuities exist from the official position. We know about the discontinuities and they are being ignored by official sources while we are being told not to talk about it. We WILL keep talking about it.

Thanks for demonstrating what I complain about. I don't even need to try anymore. LOL. Link's to the Lancet eh? You mean that same journal that had to retract the plaquenil study due to finding out the data came from an unknown data mining operation with zero credibility leading to shutting down that large study prematurely? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials Cause anything in a respected, peer reviewed journal can be trusted right? "Trust the science" is the last thing anyone should ever do. If science requires trust, how is that different from a religion that requires faith? Science is valid because it can consistently demonstrate it's claims with full transparency. I have never trusted science. No one should. That's exactly opposite of what we should do. Science that cannot be questioned, tested, verified, and possibly falsified should be immediately dismissed. In the case of covid, if the science says the vaccine stops transmission, we expect to see an obvious negative correlation with vaccine rates and cases. If not, the science is wrong. If the science says a vaccine only decreases the symptoms, yet calls it a vaccine when "prophylactic" would be a more accurate term for that treatment, the science is wrong. If the science says the vaccine stops serious symptoms, we should see an obvious, consistent negative correlation between hospitalization and vaccine rates. If we don't, the science is wrong. If the science says "vaccine safe", and we hear a ton of reports outside of official sources of people claiming vaccine injury, the science MAY be wrong and we shouldn't dismiss the claims of vaccine injury simply because we've decided to trust the science. "Trust the science" is BS and I hope you knew that already.

Thanks for your kind reply. Wow. I mean, the government already gives churches tax exempt status. What a weird position if your friend is against vax mandates for churches. If he thinks the vaccine should be mandatory for others but not for churches? Usually I hear right wingers more consistent than that. LOL. I'm glad you were coming from a good faith position. I've seen so much bad faith on this site I've started assuming guilt until proved innocence. Those of us in the skeptic camp of the vaccine debate have a wide variety of reasons for not wanting the vaccine. For me: Risk 1) There's a risk of heart inflammation from the mrna vaccine and a risk of hyper coagulability with Janson. Risk 2) It's designed to produce spike protein on my own cells which makes them a target for my immune system. Risk 3) I don't know how long the spike protein continues to be produced and I've heard it becomes widely distributed throughout the body. If long term we won't know for a long time. I'm not okay with unknown long term risk. Risk 4) the most common symptom specific to vaccine I've heard reported is loss of taste and smell suggesting to me crossing the blood brain barrier. I'm concerned about auto immune processes in my central nervous system. Risk 5) I've heard an absolute ton of anecdotal claims of very serious morbidity. If these complaints are routinely ignored (an absolute possibility in this political climate imo), how can we know the actual vaccine injury rate? It's concerning. If I happen to be a lucky one with a permanent vaccine injury, tough for me right? Or I can simply not risk it. Benefits: I'm in a very very low risk cohort from the virus itself according to CDC data, thus the vaccine benefit of avoiding hospitalization should I get infected is very low regardless of vaccination status. I've seen multiple reports saying viral load is not decreased significantly in vaccine recipients this not much benefit for limiting spread. I've seen reports that vaccine efficacy decreases substantially leading to boosters being required, but for what benefit? Very little. I could go on. In any case, in my case, the risks greatly outweigh the benefits. This is what allot of us are doing. We are thinking critically about this and making an informed decision for ourselves. I just wish side A would recognize reasonable people can come to different conclusions. I do my best to inform side B when I recognize they are basing their reasons in obvious misinformation (such as the vaccine alters dna, micro bot injection, the vaccine is a plot to kill everyone, mark of the best stuff, etc). Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. I wish we could all critically think and as nurses, give each other the benefit of the doubt. I hope this whole thing calms down soon.

I disagree. There is clearly a common, 2 sided narrative. You may not read or watch the news I guess, but it's clearly there. The pro mandate side has decided in favor of one side of the narrative. The "hesitant" has decided in favor if the other. I'm not insulting your intelligence. I simply don't believe you are as ignorant as you claim to be. I think you know full well the narrative in the public sphere. As for sources and narratives, there are clearly two distinct sides to covid and politics. I may say something like "'they' don't respect the idea of natural immunity." The response is along the lines of "the vaccine is safe and effective! Where's your source!" I give my source or reference a news article. "That's not peer reviewed! That's from a source [I don't respect]!" I shoot back, they shoot back. On and on it goes. Fact is, the truth is grey and in the middle. Those on side A of this debate are immobile and beyond reason. Those on side B, while perhaps misinformed to a degree, know more than what is on the CDC website because they look outside of the official sources. There are actually good sources outside the "officially sanctioned" sources btw. Side A thinks everything other than official sources is misinformation and thus dismisses everything else without even considering it. On and on and on. Side A thinks all options outside of official talking points are invalid, period. Side B can't be persuaded because of side A's attitude and their own legitimate fears of what we do not know, what may be conveniently left out, ignored, or buried, and the obvious disparity between what we do already know (ie things like infection meditated immunity is at least as good protection as the vaccine) and what the official sources are claiming. Israel reports massive covid case numbers after massive vaccination numbers. Why? "Add another booster and stop asking questions! they demand. (A booster that still targets the original viral spike protein in the setting of mutant strains btw)". Get vaccinated or get fired they say regardless of virus acquired immunity status. "Why?" Dr Fauci says we don't have good answers for why. The studies I read have a variety of answers from 'both just as good, vaccine wanes over 6 months to less than 50% while infection acquired immunity lasts AT LEAST a year, probably longer and it's quite robust, etc etc'. All the above going on as a large public conversation. And yet, with all the conflicting information, all the questions, all the different arguments, side A continues to loudly proclaim "safe and effective! Safe and effective! Trust the science! Misinformation! Get vaxxed or get fired! Anything you say is misinformation!" Dismissal, denial, denigration. I've been told by someone on this very site that the pandemic is entirely my fault from someone in side A (which was hilarious to me). Well as long as side A treats side B like they have nothing to contribute, that there's no discussion to be had, or that there simply is nothing one is allowed to be concerned about, this rift will harden the two sides and there will be no common ground. In any case, that's the situation as I see it. Side B does have legitimate concerns and side A should stop being so dismissive and judgemental. Side B is also subject to bad sources in some cases. But they also are aware of VALID information that goes against the official sources, opening new questions side A dismisses out of hand simply because those sources aren't "official." You may take all the above and pretend I made it all up; that's usually what happens with side A. But whether you believe it or not, there ARE two clear opposing sides in this mess of politics and pandemics. If you read this far, congratulations. ?

You don't even realize what the post you quoted was about do you? I'm entitled to my opinion, but that's not what the quote was about. It was about someone claiming ignorance on a very very commonly known, public issue. I simply don't believe that person is entirely ignorant about it.