So now that the vax is a reality who will be getting.......

[Deleted member 26368]

No vaccine is 100% effective (though some are close). However, from a public health standpoint, more vaccine in a population generally reduces risk and spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses. People are certainly free to make their personal choices either way. However, as others have stated, a pandemic that has needlessly killed millions has many people wanting to do as much as they can to reduce spread of this disease.

We will be getting it, if not for us personally, then to protect our loved ones and community.

ETA: In my opinion, the potential risks of naturally-acquired immunity to coronavirus outweigh the risks of Immunization, but I have had a long career in public health (acknowledging my biases here).

 

[skschlag]

Me too, I like being informed on things that I am putting in my body. And yes, I agree, on usual terms a site that is extreme one way is not going to be reliable, however this is a collection of weekly videos that re-quote studys and even Fauci himself. They don't conduct the studys or make up information, they just gather the information for you to have in all one place. I like to balance out my research so I read the CDC's website to, and I have found "The Highwire" as my most reliable, not contradictory source because they just gather the information from reliable sources.

so, no. I have been to the highwire. I have listened to several. They are not consolidating studies into one place. It is definitely a spin to fit their narrative. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place

And, I am in agreement that people should make their own minds up on whether to vaccinate or not. But when a site is so obviously skewed, it is detrimental to share as an unbiased news source.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Honestly, you asked for an article and that is what I found. That is NOT where I get my information, as I said I get it from Del Bigtree's "The Highwire" because I have found that he has accurate information, from study's that are made by reliable sources. I did not feel the need to send a link to a video because you would have to dig through them to find the segments about vaccines.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

When I said sources I meant actually studies proving a link of "injuries" to the vaccine. With actual data to support that.

A report of I got a headache after my vaccine is not necessarily an injury or a side effect. It could just be someone didn't have their usual caffeine intake the day of or didn't sleep well.....

Also "reactions" reported which are really an expected immune response don't count either.

All self reporting says is something happened. It says nothing about if there is an actual connection.

But all that aside. Please feel free to share legitimate studies showing causation.

 

[ProudGymnast]

so, no. I have been to the highwire. I have listened to several. They are not consolidating studies into one place. It is definitely a spin to fit their narrative. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place

And, I am in agreement that people should make their own minds up on whether to vaccinate or not. But when a site is so obviously skewed, it is detrimental to share as an unbiased news source.

THen what exactly would you consider a unbiased news source? Unfortunately everything these days is biased one way. It doesn't matter if its biased one way if it shares the TRUTH.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Instead of saying "this is our opinion", I will say "This is our truth," because my family will not be getting a vaccine for covid, especially not until studies of long term effects come out. You can get the vaccine if you feel its best for you, thats the thought I was trying to convey.

You are explicitly and deliberately using the phrase "my truth" to mean "my opinion." This is exactly the sort of verbal sleight-of-hand that I was referring to.

Let's differentiate between fact/falsehood and opinions, and let's differentiate between valid and invalid opinions. Let me draw a parallel:

Statement A: "We should build a rocket go to the moon."
This is a statement of opinion. It is neither true nor false. Some people might agree with the statement, while others might disagree, and neither side is necessarily "right" or "wrong."

Statement B: "The moon is made of cheese."
This is a statement of alleged fact. Either it is true or it is false. It's not true for some people and false for others. There is no "your truth" or "my truth" with regards to whether the moon is made of cheese.
In this case, the statement is objectively wrong. If somebody agrees with the statement, that person is wrong. Calling it an opinion will not make them any less wrong.

Statement C: "We should go to the moon for free cheese."
This is a statement of opinion. Because it is a statement about what we "should" do, it cannot be inherently true or false. However, it is an opinion based in false information, and thus it is an invalid opinion. This opinion has no value to any ongoing discussion about whether we should build rockets to go to the moon.

 

[skschlag]

THen what exactly would you consider a unbiased news source? Unfortunately everything these days is biased one way. It doesn't matter if its biased one way if it shares the TRUTH.

Actual studies. That is what I read. Not the spin on the studies, but the studies themselves.

 

[ProudGymnast]

You are explicitly and deliberately using the phrase "my truth" to mean "my opinion." This is exactly the sort of verbal sleight-of-hand that I was referring to.

Let's differentiate between fact/falsehood and opinions, and let's differentiate between valid and invalid opinions. Let me draw a parallel:

Statement A: "We should build a rocket go to the moon."
This is a statement of opinion. It is neither true nor false. Some people might agree with the statement, while others might disagree, and neither side is necessarily "right" or "wrong."

Statement B: "The moon is made of cheese."
This is a statement of alleged fact. Either it is true or it is false. It's not true for some people and false for others. There is no "your truth" or "my truth" with regards to whether the moon is made of cheese.
In this case, the statement is objectively wrong. If somebody agrees with the statement, that person is wrong. Calling their agreement a matter of opinion will not make them any less wrong.

Statement C: "We should go to the moon for free cheese."
This is a statement of opinion. Because it is a statement about what we "should" do, it cannot be inherently true or false. However, it is an opinion based in false information, and thus it is an invalid opinion. This opinion has no value to any ongoing discussion about whether we should build rockets to go to the moon.

It is a fact that my family will not be getting the vaccine. That is the truth about us, our truth.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Now, when you say you the vaccine is not worth the risk for your family, that is (for all intents and purposes) a statement of opinion. We could delve into your reasons, underlying assumptions, and relevant data to determine whether there is statistical validity to your opinion, but it is nonetheless an opinion.

When you say "less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported," that is a statement of alleged fact. Either the statement is true or it is false. There is no "your truth" or "my truth" on this statement.

 

[bogwoppit]

It is a fact that my family will not be getting the vaccine. That is the truth about us, our truth.

More about your buddy Bigtree, from a world renowned chemist. Honestly I despair that people believe such hokum, plus get to raise kids believing hokum.

You are not educating yourself with peer reviewed data, you are reading anti vaxxer sites, and expecting to get a balanced opinion. That is like drinking a bottle of vodka and expecting not to get hammered.

Enough To Make Scientists Cry!

People have been asking about a video by anti-vaxxer Del Bigtree who claims that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been properly tested, made animals deathly ill in trials, and are ineffective and dangerous for humans. I'm not going to share the video here because it is ludicrous. Bigtree is a...

www.mcgill.ca

 

[ProudGymnast]

Now, when you say you the vaccine is not worth the risk for your family, that is (for all intents and purposes) a statement of opinion. We could delve into your reasons, underlying assumptions, and relevant data to determine whether there is statistical validity to your opinion, but it is nonetheless an opinion.

When you say "less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported," that is a statement of alleged fact. Either the statement is true or it is false. There is no "your truth" or "my truth" on this statement.

Yep. You can have your opinion on whether to get it, my family have ours. I have no clue why you are replying to me over "My family would rather not take the risk." My first message was simply stating my family will not get it I really hope you can respect that

 

[bogwoppit]

Yep. You can have your opinion on whether to get it, my family have ours. I have no clue why you are replying to me over "My family would rather not take the risk." My first message was simply stating my family will not get it I really hope you can respect that

I think people want to see the actual scientific data that supports your statement about vaccines being dangerous.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Yep. You can have your opinion on whether to get it, my family have ours. I have no clue why you are replying to me over "My family would rather not take the risk." My first message was simply stating my family will not get it I really hope you can respect that

Yes. That part is an opinion. As I have stated repeatedly. We are in agreement that that part is an opinion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you stated that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. I have now pointed out twice -- and you have ignored that part of my post both times -- that this statement is not an opinion.

 

[ProudGymnast]

More about your buddy Bigtree, from a world renowned chemist. Honestly I despair that people believe such hokum, plus get to raise kids believing hokum.

You are not educating yourself with peer reviewed data, you are reading anti vaxxer sites, and expecting to get a balanced opinion. That is like drinking a bottle of vodka and expecting not to get hammered.

Enough To Make Scientists Cry!

People have been asking about a video by anti-vaxxer Del Bigtree who claims that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been properly tested, made animals deathly ill in trials, and are ineffective and dangerous for humans. I'm not going to share the video here because it is ludicrous. Bigtree is a...

www.mcgill.ca

Its not like I believe everything he says, I look at the actual studies he breaks down, and I look at other sources. I know how to research, I do not need your help And the article you just showed has no facts in it about Del, it only says he is wrong, not how. That itself is biased.

 

[bogwoppit]

Its not like I believe everything he says, I look at the actual studies he breaks down, and I look at other sources. I know how to research, I do not need your help And the article you just showed has no facts in it about Del, it only says he is wrong, not how. That itself is biased.

Well considering you have cited no peer reviewed data, you can hardly expect the same of me.

 

[ProudGymnast]

I think people want to see the actual scientific data that supports your statement about vaccines being dangerous.

the fact that people have gotten injured from it and my family will not find it helpful. If you want proof from a source YOU trust, (not me), This proves that there ARE injurys. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

Since my family has already gotten covid, and the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid (source already cited) we will not take risk for that.

Yes. That part is an opinion. As I have stated repeatedly. We are in agreement that that part is an opinion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that you stated that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. I have now pointed out twice -- and you have ignored that part of my post both times -- that this statement is not an opinion.

I have already told you my source, "the highwire." Its up to you whether to believe that or not, you can do your own analysis of it.

 

[ProudGymnast]

Well considering you have cited no peer reviewed data, you can hardly expect the same of me.

Ok then do your own analysis of your sources, I will of mine, and if you really do not appreciate sources tipped one way then I do not suggest posting them. That would just be hypocritical.

 

[ProudGymnast]

More about your buddy Bigtree, from a world renowned chemist. Honestly I despair that people believe such hokum, plus get to raise kids believing hokum.

You are not educating yourself with peer reviewed data, you are reading anti vaxxer sites, and expecting to get a balanced opinion. That is like drinking a bottle of vodka and expecting not to get hammered.

Enough To Make Scientists Cry!

People have been asking about a video by anti-vaxxer Del Bigtree who claims that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been properly tested, made animals deathly ill in trials, and are ineffective and dangerous for humans. I'm not going to share the video here because it is ludicrous. Bigtree is a...

www.mcgill.ca

Oh, and, I read multiple sources, the CDC included and I have already said that before. Ironically, I find the "Highwire" comparitively more consistent. Next time, before jumping in, read the full conversation.

 

[bogwoppit]

the fact that people have gotten injured from it and my family will not find it helpful. If you want proof from a source YOU trust, (not me), This proves that there ARE injurys. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

Since my family has already gotten covid, and the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid (source already cited) we will not take risk for that.


I have already told you my source, "the highwire." Its up to you whether to believe that or not, you can do your own analysis of it.

I quote the article, "Early safety monitoring of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after reported administration of 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (11.1 cases per million vaccine doses administered) as well as cases of less severe nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, based on U.S. data for December 14–23, 2020.".

21 cases out of 1.8+ million vaccines, really. Plus now they know of this as a very remote possibility, they are dealing with it ahead. For instance, I cannot have the Moderna or Pfizer, as I am allergic to the base, so I will have an alternative.

Oh, and, I read multiple sources, the CDC included and I have already said that before. Ironically, I find the "Highwire" comparitively more consistent. Next time, before jumping in, read the full conversation.

I read it all, every single mind-boggling word.

As to not having the vaccine, it really is your choice, 100%, as it should be. But spouting anti vaxxer doctrine has never been encouraged here.

 

[profmom]

You are attempting to create an equivalence between unlike things. Peer-reviewed published research in reputable journals does not have the same credibility as Youtube videos either making things up out of thin air or exaggerating and distorting peer-reviewed published research. The document you linked from CDC was mentioned in the NYT article I posted earlier. You can believe and do whatever you want, but if you say untrue things ("the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid"), you're going to get pushback.

If you have read and understood the actual peer-reviewed published studies, you must either explain why you think they are wrong or accept that they are right. A study could be wrong because it asked the wrong question, because the method was poorly chosen or poorly executed, because the data was not collected properly, or because the analysis itself was incorrect. These are the kinds of claims that get traction. If you want to see credible research, PubMed would be the best place to start, but there's plenty to be found just through Google Scholar.

If you don't know what I mean by peer-reviewed published research in reputable journals, you do not understand enough about science to be making these judgments.

(Quick note to everyone else -- I have learned to be very careful about trusting preprints and working papers on COVID. Too many researchers have been rushing to get stuff out and get noticed, and then when the work does reach peer review, it turns out it was not all that. A lot of bad stuff on R0s that made headlines early on never made it into print. I suggest caution.)

 

[ProudGymnast]

I quote the article, "Early safety monitoring of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after reported administration of 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (11.1 cases per million vaccine doses administered) as well as cases of less severe nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, based on U.S. data for December 14–23, 2020.".

21 cases out of 1.8+ million vaccines, really. Plus now they know of this as a very remote possibility, they are dealing with it ahead. For instance, I cannot have the Moderna or Pfizer, as I am allergic to the base, so I will have an alternative.

I read it all, every single mind-boggling word.

As to not having the vaccine, it really is your choice, 100%, as it should be. But spouting anti vaxxer doctrine has never been encouraged here.

You are attempting to create an equivalence between unlike things. Peer-reviewed published research in reputable journals does not have the same credibility as Youtube videos either making things up out of thin air or exaggerating and distorting peer-reviewed published research. The document you linked from CDC was mentioned in the NYT article I posted earlier. You can believe and do whatever you want, but if you say untrue things ("the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid"), you're going to get pushback.

If you have read and understood the actual peer-reviewed published studies, you must either explain why you think they are wrong or accept that they are right. A study could be wrong because it asked the wrong question, because the method was poorly chosen or poorly executed, because the data was not collected properly, or because the analysis itself was incorrect. These are the kinds of claims that get traction. If you want to see credible research, PubMed would be the best place to start, but there's plenty to be found just through Google Scholar.

If you don't know what I mean by peer-reviewed published research in reputable journals, you do not understand enough about science to be making these judgments.

(Quick note to everyone else -- I have learned to be very careful about trusting preprints and working papers on COVID. Too many researchers have been rushing to get stuff out and get noticed, and then when the work does reach peer review, it turns out it was not all that. A lot of bad stuff on R0s that made headlines early on never made it into print. I suggest caution.)

Lets make this what my original comment was about, what the actual forum is about please: my family is NOT getting the vaccine, due to possible risks, the fact that we have already had covid, and the fact that we do not know the possible long term side effects as the vaccine was rushed through approval. And please stop acting like your opinion is any more valid than mine is.