Apparently per the EEOC's guidelines employers (not just healthcare related) can mandate vaccination of workers. The exception is a "sincerely held religious belief" or a covered disability. Just found out this morning that a chain of for profit LTC/SNF's are rolling out a Covid vaccine mandate for all direct care staff or face indefinite unpaid administrative leave. I am a heavy supporter of vaccination and of the new COVID vaccine and in fact am due to get one in early January. But I am doing so of my own volition. My facility encouraged all workers to sign up for a vaccine and provided information sessions and it's been really effective at getting people to sign up.
Even though I would disagree with someone's choice to not vaccinate, I don't believe they should be mandated at this point.
Where is the data that vaccines provide better protection that previous infection?
Why are you asking me where the data is? I never made a claim that vaccines provides better protection.
Gaining immunity from a natural infections, comes at a much higher risk than gaining immunity from a vaccine. Why do you think it makes sense to take a risk with an infection?
2 hours ago, myoglobin said:
Also, if the vaccines are so effective (approaching 100% in some cases in terms of preventing serious illness/death) then it is those of us who chose not to vaccinate who should be afraid.
Why are you completely ignoring herd immunity? We don’t only vaccinate for individuals. Like it or not, as a member of society you are part of the herd.
You’re right that by choosing to not vaccinate, you are subjecting yourself to a risk that you could have mitigated with a vaccine. I don’t have an opinion on that beyond thinking that perhaps you think that your zinc and vitamin D status will keep you safe from harm...
But you won’t only be assuming a personal risk. If that’s all it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The problem is that you and your anti-vaccine brethren will be out there and help keeping transmission levels high, prolonging the pandemic, facilitating the emergence of new variants and also possibly infecting people who would have liked to be vaccinated, but couldn’t for medical reasons.
2 hours ago, myoglobin said:
Indeed, where is that data that the "viral load" of those vaccinated (who can still get infected but do not get sick) is any lower than that of someone who is unvaccinated?
It’s early days yet but youreallyshould read this:
I suspect that we will likely discover more evidence in the future that a vaccinated person will be less infectious after a breakthrough infection, than an unvaccinated person. Time will tell. But even if we don’t, isn’t protection against serious disease and death a valuable enough gain in itself?
2 hours ago, myoglobin said:
If "we are wrong" and you are correct then many of us will get sick and perhaps perish. If "we" are correct then the long term ramifications of a rushed vaccine will likely play themselves out over the months and years to come.
So against all reason, logic and previous experience of vaccines, you’re still fearing that some side effect will rear its head years from now?
I’ve already asked you this but since you haven’t answered, I’ll try again. Do you have any rational, fact-based reason for suspecting that these vaccines (bear in mind that there are different types of vaccines being used already and more are in the pipeline), will ”behave” in a completely different way than other vaccines have?
This mental hand-wringing about a highly implausible future event is so hard for me to understand, when we know darn well the level of illness, suffering, deaths and negative impact on societies and economies this virus has caused, and still does.
I can’t really figure out if you are simply anti-vaccine in general and here to spread disinformation and fear, or if it is you who is fearful in a way that is not really reasonable based on the available science? If you feel the first part of my question was unfair, any one who speculates without a scintilla of proof that the vaccines might cause infertility, is spreading disinformation. (Whether they realize it or not).
Why are you asking me where the data is? I never made a claim that vaccines provides better protection.
Gaining immunity from a natural infections, comes at a much higher risk than gaining immunity from a vaccine. Why do you think it makes sense to take a risk with an infection?
Why are you completely ignoring herd immunity? We don’t only vaccinate for individuals. Like it or not, as a member of society you are part of the herd.
You’re right that by choosing to not vaccinate, you are subjecting yourself to a risk that you could have mitigated with a vaccine. I don’t have an opinion on that beyond thinking that perhaps you think that your zinc and vitamin D status will keep you safe from harm...
But you won’t only be assuming a personal risk. If that’s all it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The problem is that you and your anti-vaccine brethren will be out there and help keeping transmission levels high, prolonging the pandemic, facilitating the emergence of new variants and also possibly infecting people who would have liked to be vaccinated, but couldn’t for medical reasons.
It’s early days yet but youreallyshould read this:
I suspect that we will likely discover more evidence in the future that a vaccinated person will be less infectious after a breakthrough infection, than an unvaccinated person. Time will tell. But even if we don’t, isn’t protection against serious disease and death a valuable enough gain in itself?
So against all reason, logic and previous experience of vaccines, you’re still fearing that some side effect will rear its head years from now?
I’ve already asked you this but since you haven’t answered, I’ll try again. Do you have any rational, fact-based reason for suspecting that these vaccines (bear in mind that there are different types of vaccines being used already and more are in the pipeline), will ”behave” in a completely different way than other vaccines have?
This mental hand-wringing about a highly implausible future event is so hard for me to understand, when we know darn well the level of illness, suffering, deaths and negative impact on societies and economies this virus has caused, and still does.
I can’t really figure out if you are simply anti-vaccine in general and here to spread disinformation and fear, or if it is you who is fearful in a way that is not really reasonable based on the available science? If you feel the first part of my question was unfair, any one who speculates without a scintilla of proof that the vaccines might cause infertility, is spreading disinformation. (Whether they realize it or not).
1. The VAERS data for all of covid vaccines shows more deaths and serious reactions than combined vaccine data of every type of vaccine that is given over the last three or four years combined.
2. I have had the Covid virus and have antibodies. I have seen no evidence that vaccination after infection is helpful and it is reasonable to believe that it might increase the likelihood of side effects.
3. I also don't believe that "most" healthy people with no comorbid conditions (such as myself) under age 70 or so are at serious risk of the disease.
4. The vaccines are authorized under emergency use. That may change soon but as of now even active duty special forces cannot be forced to take the vaccine.
5. Evidence continues to emerge that this virus "at least" escaped by accident from a Wuhan lab. I believe that evidence may accumulate in the future that it was a rather more "deliberate" release of a virus designed to "gain function" and thus this is unlike most viral threats we have faced in the past. At least a probable act of gross negligence and perhaps something much worse.
6. I also oppose anything that smells of "big government" tyranny. My motto is "live free or die" . All of us will die in the the end (I believe that our spirit goes on in some capacity although I'm not sure if the Wiccan's, Buddhists, Christians or someone else has the details correct). I will take a month or a year of life as a free individual over a thousand years (were such possible) of controlled existence.
7. Also in reading the study you referenced several things stood out:
a. The control group did not include those who had "previous infection" (or if it did it was not indicated).
b. The difference in viral load was still "modest" and seemed to disappear completely by day 36?.
8, I also worry that those who have been vaccinated may actually "contribute" to natural selection pressure on viral variants that are resistant to the spike protein antibodies in the MRNA vaccines and that the vaccine while producing more robust "antibody mediated immunity" might not produce as much "cellularly mediated" or T cell immunity as naturally acquired infection.
9. Note "one" way to clarify these issues would be "case control" studies that are "forward looking" between RN's who choose to be vaccinated (50 to 80%) depending upon the state and thoose such as myself declining the vaccination. If this data was tracked over a year or two then interesting and useful data might be extracted. Since those who choose to vaccinate will do so (and largely have already done so) and those who decline, will likely continue to decline the data is "there for the taking." Granted not everyone would participate but even 10,000 case controlled matched such individuals would likely be illuminating. I believe that the data will show the unvaccinated individuals have statistically significant less morbidity and mortality from things like PE and strokes, and hardly (if at all) greater mortality from Covid, but I could be quite wrong. If I am "very wrong" (say the data shows a 200% increase chance of serious illness and death for the unvaccinated) then such studies would at least likely motivate a "significant portion" of those currently not vaccinating to change their minds.
The history of vaccines shows that delayed effects following vaccination can occur. But when they do, these effects tend to happen within two months of vaccination
Most long term vaccine effects are known since vaccines started 9 month ago to be administered while LONG TERM effects from COVID-19 infection continue to be reported.
The number of children contracting COVID-19 in the U.S. is much lower than the record highs set at the start of the new year, but children now account for more than a fifth of new coronavirus cases in states that release data by age, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's a statistic that may surprise many: Just one year ago, child COVID-19 cases made up only around 3% of the U.S. total....
On Monday, the AAP said children represented 22.4% of new cases reported in the past week, accounting for 71,649 out of 319,601 cases. The latest report, drawn from data collected through April 29, illustrates how children's share of coronavirus infections has grown in recent weeks.
Experts link the trend to several factors – particularly high vaccination rates among older Americans. The U.S. recently announced 100 million people were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. But other dynamics are also in play, from new COVID-19 variants to the loosening of restrictions on school activities.
It's also worth noting that for the vast majority of the pandemic, the age group with the highest case rates has been 18 to 24 in the U.S., as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes....
Coronaviruses are a frequent cause of the common cold. Most of us bounce back from colds without any lasting health effects. So, you might think that individuals who survive other infectious diseases caused by coronaviruses—including COVID-19—would also return to normal relatively quickly. While that can be the case for some people, others who’ve survived even relatively mild COVID-19 are experiencing health challenges that may last for weeks or even months. In fact, the situation is so common, that some of these folks have banded together and given their condition a name: the COVID “long-haulers.”
Among the many longer-term health problems that have been associated with COVID-19 are shortness of breath, fatigue, cognitive issues, erratic heartbeat, gastrointestinal issues, low-grade fever, intolerance to physical or mental activity, and muscle and joint pains. COVID-19 survivors report that these symptoms flair up unpredictably, often in different combinations, and can be debilitating for days and weeks at a time. Because COVID-19 is such a new disease, little is known about what causes the persistence of symptoms, what is impeding full recovery, or how to help the long-haulers....
NIH Directors Blog April 20th, 2021 by Dr. Francis Collins
It’s become increasingly clear that even healthy people with mild cases of COVID-19 can battle a constellation of symptoms that worsen over time—or which sometimes disappear only to come right back. These symptoms are part of what’s called “Long COVID Syndrome.”
Now, a new study of relatively young, healthy adult healthcare workers in Sweden adds needed information on the frequency of this Long COVID Syndrome. Published in the journal JAMA, the study found that just over 1 in 10 healthcare workers who had what at first seemed to be a relatively mild bout of COVID-19 were still coping with at least one moderate to severe symptom eight months later [1]. Those symptoms—most commonly including loss of smell and taste, fatigue, and breathing problems—also negatively affected the work and/or personal lives of these individuals.
The researchers have noted that the Swedish healthcare workers represent a relatively young and healthy group of working individuals. Yet, many of them continued to suffer from lasting symptoms related to mild COVID-19. It’s a reminder that COVID-19 can and, in fact, is having a devastating impact on the lives and livelihoods of adults who are at low risk for developing severe and life-threatening COVID-19. If we needed one more argument for getting young people vaccinated, this is it.
At NIH, efforts have been underway for some time to identify the causes of Long COVID. In fact, a virtual workshop was held last Winter with more than 1,200 participants to discuss what’s known and to fill in key gaps in our knowledge of Long COVID syndrome, which is clinically known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). Recently, a workshop summary was published [2]. As workshops and studies like this one from Sweden help to define the problem, the hope is to learn one day how to treat or prevent this terrible condition. The NIH is now investing more than $1 billion in seeking those answers.
COVID-19 immunized staff will have less ability to infect facilities patients, decrease #staff with post-covid infection having long term illness, thus unable to work affecting staffing issues, along with decreased employer paid healthcare costs + employee out of pocket co-pays -- a win-win for the employee and the organization.
1. The VAERS data for all of covid vaccines shows more deaths and serious reactions than combined vaccine data of every type of vaccine that is given over the last three or four years combined.
Lies, I could not find any such data. If, you have it then post your reference.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
2. I have had the Covid virus and have antibodies. I have seen no evidence that vaccination after infection is helpful and it is reasonable to believe that it might increase the likelihood of side effects.
That MIGHT is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. If you don't know find out THEN post your reference.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
3. I also don't believe that "most" healthy people with no comorbid conditions (such as myself) under age 70 or so are at serious risk of the disease.
I have already shown that people in the 20 - 40 age group are increasingly becoming unwell. Long covid is a thing, especially amongst females.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
4. The vaccines are authorized under emergency use. That may change soon but as of now even active duty special forces cannot be forced to take the vaccine.
Only in the USA. The resat of the world has taken a different view.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
5. Evidence continues to emerge that this virus "at least" escaped by accident from a Wuhan lab. I believe that evidence may accumulate in the future that it was a rather more "deliberate" release of a virus designed to "gain function" and thus this is unlike most viral threats we have faced in the past. At least a probable act of gross negligence and perhaps something much worse.
Possibly it was allowed to escape by accident or design but so what? In terms of trying to stop a GLOBAL PANDEMIC it would be better to try to fix the problems first. Time for recriminations once the virus is checked.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
7. Also in reading the study you referenced several things stood out:
a. The control group did not include those who had "previous infection" (or if it did it was not indicated).
b. The difference in viral load was still "modest" and seemed to disappear completely by day 36?.
I did not give those references so I am going to leave it to macawake to reply to that.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
8, I also worry that those who have been vaccinated may actually "contribute" to natural selection pressure on viral variants that are resistant to the spike protein antibodies in the MRNA vaccines and that the vaccine while producing more robust "antibody mediated immunity" might not produce as much "cellularly mediated" or T cell immunity as naturally acquired infection.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you are clutching at straws.
16 hours ago, myoglobin said:
9. Note "one" way to clarify these issues would be "case control" studies that are "forward looking" between RN's who choose to be vaccinated (50 to 80%) depending upon the state and thoose such as myself declining the vaccination. If this data was tracked over a year or two then interesting and useful data might be extracted. Since those who choose to vaccinate will do so (and largely have already done so) and those who decline, will likely continue to decline the data is "there for the taking." Granted not everyone would participate but even 10,000 case controlled matched such individuals would likely be illuminating. I believe that the data will show the unvaccinated individuals have statistically significant less morbidity and mortality from things like PE and strokes, and hardly (if at all) greater mortality from Covid, but I could be quite wrong. If I am "very wrong" (say the data shows a 200% increase chance of serious illness and death for the unvaccinated) then such studies would at least likely motivate a "significant portion" of those currently not vaccinating to change their minds.
Of course nobody in the world is doing any research into the vaccine and its uses and abuses to see what happens. Where do you live that scientists and medical staff are so incompetent that they do not monitor anything.
Of course it does not support your position. It specifically states; "No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants." That means get everyone vaccinated to stop spread to stop variants.
Again, stop looking at pessimistic web site and start looking for proper researched articles from all over the world. There are plenty to choose from.
7. Also in reading the study you referenced several things stood out:
a. The control group did not include those who had "previous infection" (or if it did it was not indicated).
b. The difference in viral load was still "modest" and seemed to disappear completely by day 36?.
2 hours ago, GrumpyRN said:
I did not give those references so I am going to leave it to macawake to reply to that.
Happy to oblige ? (but now that I started writing this post I realized I have to get a cup of coffee first.. a big one...)
Oh and Grumpy, thank you for the kind emojis ?
Myoglobin, how did you come to the conclusion that the difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was ”modest”? Did you look at the gap between the lines in figure 2 b and think that looks kind of narrow...? Must translate to a modest difference...?
I would have thought that a 2.8-4.5-fold decrease in viral load in vaccinated individuals is pretty good. We don’t yet know what this means in terms of infectiousness but it’s a significant decrease in viral load.
Why on earth do you think that the study should have had a control group of people who’ve previously had a Covid infection?
There are many things wrong with your line of thinking. You are still pretending that gaining immunity through natural infection is a good alternative to getting vaccinated. I’ve asked you this before. Why should people risk serious illness, sequelae like ”Long Covid” and possibly death and risk infecting others, risk facilitating the emergence of new variants and add burden to healthcare systems in order to get immunity when they could get a vaccine instead?
Not done yet... Need more ☕️
Despite having had high levels of community transmission for more than a year, the majority in both your country and mine haven’t yet had a Covid-19 infection. That means that a significant part of our populations are still naive and susceptible. Vaccines will protect us all.
The difference in viral load does not disappear completely by day 36. You are not reading the graphs correctly.
In Figure 1 it is obvious that the Ct value is consistently higher in day 12-37 after the first vaccine dose than it is in day 1-11. A higher Ct (cycle threshold) value indicates a lower viral load.
For the first eleven days after the first vaccine dose was administered, the viral load was about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, as shown in Figure 2 a. (This makes sense since we wouldn’t expect immediate protection from the vaccine).
Please note that while the the numbers on the x axis in Figure 1 are days, in Figure 2a and 2b the numbers on the x axis are NOT days. The numbers on the x axis in 2a and 2b are the same (15-36) and they represent Ct value.
Figure2ashowsday1-11andFigure2bshowsday12-37 (after the first vaccine dose).
OntheyaxisinFigure2aand2bwehavecumulativeproportion, from0.0to1.0. The fact that the yellow unvaccinated line and the blue vaccinated line converge at the two extreme ends 0.0 and 1.0) doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the two groups. It’s the total area between the lines that shows the difference. And again, it’s not time that’s measured here.
Do you see the:
***
<—>
at 0.5 of the cumulative proportion?
If you return to Figure 1 you’ll see, contrary to what you thought, that for the later half of the period day 12-37 the Ct values in the vaccinated group tend to be more above the green mean line for that period, and that the trend isn’t decreasing but rather it appears it might even be increasing towards higher Ct values (= lower viral loads) as more time passes from the first dose and a second dose is given.
I think that study is quite good news for all of us.
Happy to oblige ? (but now that I started writing this post I realized I have to get a cup of coffee first.. a big one...)
Oh and Grumpy, thank you for the kind emojis ?
Myoglobin, how did you come to the conclusion that the difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was ”modest”? Did you look at the gap between the lines in figure 2 b and think that looks kind of narrow...? Must translate to a modest difference...?
I would have thought that a 2.8-4.5-fold decrease in viral load in vaccinated individuals is pretty good. We don’t yet know what this means in terms of infectiousness but it’s a significant decrease in viral load.
Why on earth do you think that the study should have had a control group of people who’ve previously had a Covid infection?
There are many things wrong with your line of thinking. You are still pretending that gaining immunity through natural infection is a good alternative to getting vaccinated. I’ve asked you this before. Why should people risk serious illness, sequelae like ”Long Covid” and possibly death and risk infecting others, risk facilitating the emergence of new variants and add burden to healthcare systems in order to get immunity when they could get a vaccine instead?
Not done yet... Need more ☕️
Despite having had high levels of community transmission for more than a year, the majority in both your country and mine haven’t yet had a Covid-19 infection. That means that a significant part of our populations are still naive and susceptible. Vaccines will protect us all.
The difference in viral load does not disappear completely by day 36. You are not reading the graphs correctly.
In Figure 1 it is obvious that the Ct value is consistently higher in day 12-37 after the first vaccine dose than it is in day 1-11. A higher Ct (cycle threshold) value indicates a lower viral load.
For the first eleven days after the first vaccine dose was administered, the viral load was about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, as shown in Figure 2 a.
Please note that while the the numbers on the x axis in Figure 1 are days, in Figure 2a and 2b the numbers on the x axis are NOT days. They numbers on the x axis in 2a and 2b are the same (15-36) in and they represent Ct value.
Figure2ashowsday1-11andFigure2bshowsday12-37 (after the first vaccine dose).
OntheyaxisinFigure2aand2bwehavecumulativeproportion, from0.0to1.0. The fact that the yellow unvaccinated line and the blue vaccinated line converge at the two extreme ends 0.0 and 1.0) doesn’t mean that there no difference between the two groups. It’s the total area between the lines that shows the difference. And again, it’s not time that’s measured here.
Do you see the:
***
<—>
at 0.5 of the cumulative proportion?
My key point is aimed at people like me who have been infected by Covid and who have documented antibodies to Covid-19. Note that it is not possible to test for "cellular immunity" in any sort of realistic way, but I have had a confirmed positive test, a subsequent negative test, and a confirmed antibody test. I submit that for this group of people (which I believe is rather large) that the risks of side effects from the vaccine are higher, and that the benefits are lower. Thus, it is "too late" to prevent getting the disease for many (perhaps most) since we acquired it early last year.
My key point is aimed at people like me who have been infected by Covid and who have documented antibodies to Covid-19. Note that it is not possible to test for "cellular immunity" in any sort of realistic way, but I have had a confirmed positive test, a subsequent negative test, and a confirmed antibody test. I submit that for this group of people (which I believe is rather large) that the risks of side effects from the vaccine are higher, and that the benefits are lower. Thus, it is "too late" to prevent getting the disease for many (perhaps most) since we acquired it early last year.
Honestly, to me, your key point seems to be that you do not want to be vaccinated. It doesn’t seem to matter what science tells you. You just keep coming up with various scenarios that are mostly guesswork and conjecture and base your (already formed) decisions on that.
Do you have anything to say about the study I linked and explained, now that you know that vaccinated individuals actually do appear to have a significantly lower viral load than unvaccinated?
You ”submitting” that you think that the risks for a certain group (people who’ve had a Covid infection) of taking a vaccine are higher, isn’t science. Submit away, but I prefer scientific data.
How long do you intend to trust that immunity from a previous infection will keep you safe? Personally, I am pretty sure that at some point I’ll need to get a vaccine booster dose. What are your plans? Getting infected again at some point in the future?
The CDC has estimated that about a third of Americans have had a Covid infection.
I believe that the data will show the unvaccinated individuals have statistically significant less morbidity and mortality from things like PE and strokes, and hardly (if at all) greater mortality from Covid, but I could be quite wrong. If I am "very wrong" (say the data shows a 200% increase chance of serious illness and death for the unvaccinated) then such studies would at least likely motivate a "significant portion" of those currently not vaccinating to change their minds.
This is a perfect example of your wild conjecture, with no supporting facts offered to back up this hunch of yours.
Do you have anyfacts that indicate or demonstrate that unvaccinated individuals have a statistically significant decreased risk of morbidity/mortality from pulmonary embolisms and strokes AND that the vaccines are likely to offer no, or only a very low level of protection, from serious Covid illness and death? Because to me, both of those claims sound pretty crazy considering all we already know about the vaccines and all we already know about Covid-19 infections and the morbidity and mortality they cause.
You keep on blurting out all these unsubstantiated and highly implausible theories without offering up any evidence. Don’t get the vaccine if you don’t want to, but could you please try to stick to facts and science when deciding what to post?
I commented upon the portion which did discuss political influence. It's unfortunate that so many people are firmly set against vaccination because of partisan political beliefs, unfounded fears or misinformation.
My political ( leftist, rightist or in betweenist) beliefs have NOTHING to do with my health care decisions. I look at the information and make my decision. It really does not matter; how can you FORCE someone to have something injected into his/her body if they don't want it for ( insert reason here)
This is a perfect example of your wild conjecture, with no supporting facts offered to back up this hunch of yours.
Do you have anyfacts that indicate or demonstrate that unvaccinated individuals have a statistically significant decreased risk of morbidity/mortality from pulmonary embolisms and strokes AND that the vaccines are likely to offer no, or only a very low level of protection, from serious Covid illness and death? Because to me, both of those claims sound pretty crazy considering all we already know about the vaccines and all we already know about Covid-19 infections and the morbidity and mortality they cause.
You keep on blurting out all these unsubstantiated and highly implausible theories without offering up any evidence. Don’t get the vaccine if you don’t want to, but could you please try to stick to facts and science when deciding what to post?
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
Why are you asking me where the data is? I never made a claim that vaccines provides better protection.
Gaining immunity from a natural infections, comes at a much higher risk than gaining immunity from a vaccine. Why do you think it makes sense to take a risk with an infection?
Why are you completely ignoring herd immunity? We don’t only vaccinate for individuals. Like it or not, as a member of society you are part of the herd.
You’re right that by choosing to not vaccinate, you are subjecting yourself to a risk that you could have mitigated with a vaccine. I don’t have an opinion on that beyond thinking that perhaps you think that your zinc and vitamin D status will keep you safe from harm...
But you won’t only be assuming a personal risk. If that’s all it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The problem is that you and your anti-vaccine brethren will be out there and help keeping transmission levels high, prolonging the pandemic, facilitating the emergence of new variants and also possibly infecting people who would have liked to be vaccinated, but couldn’t for medical reasons.
It’s early days yet but you really should read this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
I suspect that we will likely discover more evidence in the future that a vaccinated person will be less infectious after a breakthrough infection, than an unvaccinated person. Time will tell. But even if we don’t, isn’t protection against serious disease and death a valuable enough gain in itself?
So against all reason, logic and previous experience of vaccines, you’re still fearing that some side effect will rear its head years from now?
I’ve already asked you this but since you haven’t answered, I’ll try again. Do you have any rational, fact-based reason for suspecting that these vaccines (bear in mind that there are different types of vaccines being used already and more are in the pipeline), will ”behave” in a completely different way than other vaccines have?
This mental hand-wringing about a highly implausible future event is so hard for me to understand, when we know darn well the level of illness, suffering, deaths and negative impact on societies and economies this virus has caused, and still does.
I can’t really figure out if you are simply anti-vaccine in general and here to spread disinformation and fear, or if it is you who is fearful in a way that is not really reasonable based on the available science? If you feel the first part of my question was unfair, any one who speculates without a scintilla of proof that the vaccines might cause infertility, is spreading disinformation. (Whether they realize it or not).