What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The more time that goes on doesn’t mean tests stop. It was an emergency use authorization, they are still gathering data and doing testing. Remember, efficacy of the covid vax is how well it triggers an antibody response, NOT how well it prevents someone from getting the virus or passing it on. The other part is to help prevent hospitalization and death (it’s not 100% either) I’m offended that you think I’m dumb enough not to know this . I’m starting to think I’m dumb enough though to keep responding to you when you don’t even show me what I ask and I keep replying .

If they tested and proved widespread efficacy, they don't have to do the tests all over again unless they are changing the vax or there is a significant change in the subjects the vax is administered to.
What other vaccine that is in current use do they do complete efficacy studies on when the vaccine hasn't changed?
I'm not sure what you are asking for that I haven't shown you. Most of the things you have asked for are under the presumption that vaccines do not work, which is obviously a non-starter.
Reiterate a valid question i missed and I will gladly answer.

Heck at this point I’ll even take any reputable agency (CDC for example) that says if you get the jab and what now 4 boosters it will prevent you from getting the virus and prevent you if you do get it (which you shouldn’t but what do you think a breakthrough infection is ) you don’t give it to others. I have no idea how this part is even debatable lol. It’s why you don’t ever see it marketed that way, it’s why the cdc doesn’t list it as a benefit! Even left wing news knows this and I’m too lazy to go on YouTube to search for the clips but you can yourself cause I’ve already seen it. I think if my memory is right they even admitted it on the view .

Blue sky benefits are something that can be seen in statistical data. Using seatbelts as an analogy: The dramatic reduction in deaths from car accidents after seatbelts were made mandatory to wear. Anti-seatbelt people will point out the one or two people that still die while wearing a seatbelt, or claim that other advances in car safety are the reason, but it's a fool's folly to say seatbelts are not effective in preventing deaths.
I don;t understand how you think it's debatable that a vaccine affects more than just the person who gets it, and will again point to immigrnats being required to get vaccines to prevent an outbreak. An outbreak is more than one person.
If a sick person can casue an an outbreak, don't you see the logic that reducing or preventing sickness can reduce the odds of outbreak?
Do you think it we all just stopped getting vaxed for polio, that we'd all be safe because it is "gone"? What happens then when one of us picks it up elsewhere and brings it home? Their lack of vax has no effect on anyone else. Right?

They stopped the requirement for travelers cause the emergency authorization expired. They have no grounds to do it anymore. Some other countries like Colombia which I visit often only kept requiring negative test results to visit and not vaccine proof cause the US government gave them millions (I believe in the 100’s of millions) to do it and respond to covid. It’s over now, the covid thing is done and no one cares anymore.

Can you explain the "no grounds to do it any more"? What grounds do they have to require other vaccinations?
The EUA ended b/c vaxes are FDA approved.,

Right from the cdc and I’ve searched it all, notice how there is no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it? It’s cause that is not what it’s for .
“

• The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period.
• Additionally, protection against hospitalization in the first 4 months after the third dose of vaccine during the BA.4/BA.5 period was 60% and decreased to 29% after 4 months.

The efficacy figures are shown in what happened once the vax administration became widespread.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but you claim "no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it" and then you include a stat like "The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period."
WHich one is it? No efficacy or known efficacy?

And if a vaccine doesn;t exist to prevent infection or to prevent the spread of infection, then what DOES one do?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

They rolled out the EUA COVID vaccines with hardly any oversight, either. Seems like the studies that were done to prove early safety were completely done by the vaccine manufacturer…just saying…it’s not like Pfizer holds the record for the biggest healthcare fraud settlement ever from lying about its products, like they’ve done several times, which lead to the deaths of adults and children from their lies…I’m sure you can trust their study on their own vaccines…

Supposed to take 5 to 12 years to “safely” develop a vaccine:

‘“I have a friend who’s, believe it or not, he tends to be liberal and he said, ‘Why don’t you ever talk about the fact that you had the vaccines approved in nine months instead of 12 years?’ Five to 12 years they said it was going to take,” Trump claimed.’

‘“These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in response to the release of a company analysis that claimed the Pfizer shot showed “[n]o serious safety concerns.”’ <- he can be sued for lying about that, false claim about a medical product to sell the product

Why Trump Should Acknowledge The Covid Shot's Risks

Trump is declining to acknowledge the documented side effects associated with the Covid jabs, but he shouldn't.

thefederalist.com

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Really weird how a generally isolated group of people would have a lower incidence of an illness that seems to have been spread quite readily through social contact.

 

[djdilliodon!]

If they tested and proved widespread efficacy, they don't have to do the tests all over again unless they are changing the vax or there is a significant change in the subjects the vax is administered to.
What other vaccine that is in current use do they do complete efficacy studies on when the vaccine hasn't changed?
I'm not sure what you are asking for that I haven't shown you. Most of the things you have asked for are under the presumption that vaccines do not work, which is obviously a non-starter.
Reiterate a valid question i missed and I will gladly answer.

Blue sky benefits are something that can be seen in statistical data. Using seatbelts as an analogy: The dramatic reduction in deaths from car accidents after seatbelts were made mandatory to wear. Anti-seatbelt people will point out the one or two people that still die while wearing a seatbelt, or claim that other advances in car safety are the reason, but it's a fool's folly to say seatbelts are not effective in preventing deaths.
I don;t understand how you think it's debatable that a vaccine affects more than just the person who gets it, and will again point to immigrnats being required to get vaccines to prevent an outbreak. An outbreak is more than one person.
If a sick person can casue an an outbreak, don't you see the logic that reducing or preventing sickness can reduce the odds of outbreak?
Do you think it we all just stopped getting vaxed for polio, that we'd all be safe because it is "gone"? What happens then when one of us picks it up elsewhere and brings it home? Their lack of vax has no effect on anyone else. Right?


Can you explain the "no grounds to do it any more"? What grounds do they have to require other vaccinations?
The EUA ended b/c vaxes are FDA approved.,

The efficacy figures are shown in what happened once the vax administration became widespread.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but you claim "no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it" and then you include a stat like "The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period."
WHich one is it? No efficacy or known efficacy?

And if a vaccine doesn;t exist to prevent infection or to prevent the spread of infection, then what DOES one do?

Lots of fluff so let me keep on the point and the point only. The covid vaccine was made to reduce the chances of hospitalization, death, and long covid for the person who gets it. That is all, nothing more. In the beginning some tried to peddle it prevented you from getting the virus and spreading it. That isn’t true, it’s the same with the flu vaccine, if the flu vaccine prevented spread and a person getting the virus it would be eradicated. Covid and the flu are not polio or like other viruses. Some viruses can be eradicated and that is why it’s mandatory to get a vaccine that is capable of doing that. You are beating around the bush here, the bottom line is you get a covid vaccine for yourself, not to save others but to save yourself. If you want to believe the vaccine prevents a person from getting the virus and spreading it, you need to say it’s your opinion, cause it most certainly isn’t a fact. I’m not an antivaxxer, it’s clear vaccines do work but we can’t pretend a vaccine does something it doesn’t. This is why I mentioned virtue in the first place cause I never said it does nothing I never said it doesn’t work. I said it doesn’t prevent spread or a person from getting it. You not understanding that and even after proof is shown, the only reason I could think of why you want to die on this hill is simply cause of virtue.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Supposed to take 5 to 12 years to “safely” develop a vaccine:

‘“I have a friend who’s, believe it or not, he tends to be liberal and he said, ‘Why don’t you ever talk about the fact that you had the vaccines approved in nine months instead of 12 years?’ Five to 12 years they said it was going to take,” Trump claimed.’

‘“These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in response to the release of a company analysis that claimed the Pfizer shot showed “[n]o serious safety concerns.”’ <- he can be sued for lying about that, false claim about a medical product to sell the product

Why Trump Should Acknowledge The Covid Shot's Risks

Trump is declining to acknowledge the documented side effects associated with the Covid jabs, but he shouldn't.

thefederalist.com

What is the rule that it should take 5-12 years? Is it written?

And "the risks"?
How come a 1% death rate when talking about 330,000,000 potentially infected people is "nothing" (we lost 1.1 Million to COVID), but a vaccine that may cause the death of .00002% of people who take it (potential of 6,600 people) is a horrow show?

That seems to be a very selective concern to me.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

So if you didn't get the vax and got COVID, you die? How am I still alive then?

I think they should have studied the bodies natural immunity to COVID before rushing into a vaccine. At that point they could see how the body fought it naturally and replicated that. Like I said, the second time I got COVID I didn't know I even had it.

The vax was supposed to kill me in 2 years. Neither of us should be alive.

 

[SlugButter]

He obviously did, but gave a deep explanation of why your examples mean nothing in the context of whether getting a vax helps others.

In both situations you described, the actors do something virtuous, but not EVERYTHING they do is virtuous. So, that must make BOTH of them non-virtuous people.
Or BOTH of them virtuous people.

In the meantime, have you reported this relative for committing fraud? That would be a virtuous thing to do.

I don’t report family to authorities. We take care of our own issues. We for sure do have different virtues.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

What is the rule that it should take 5-12 years? Is it written?

And "the risks"?
How come a 1% death rate when talking about 330,000,000 potentially infected people is "nothing" (we lost 1.1 Million to COVID), but a vaccine that may cause the death of .00002% of people who take it (potential of 6,600 people) is a horrow show?

That seems to be a very selective concern to me.

Agreed. Lets be honest, if the anti-vaxxers true concern was saving people lives/health, then they would have to switch sides. The only way to make the Covid vax look bad is to ignore the damage wrought by actual Covid. That said, now that the Omicron variant is here, I don't see the need for expensive vaccine programs; treat covid like we treat the flu.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Lots of fluff so let me keep on the point and the point only. The covid vaccine was made to reduce the chances of hospitalization, death, and long covid for the person who gets it. That is all, nothing more. In the beginning some tried to peddle it prevented you from getting the virus and spreading it. That isn’t true, it’s the same with the flu vaccine, if the flu vaccine prevented spread and a person getting the virus it would be eradicated. Covid and the flu are not polio or like other viruses. Some viruses can be eradicated and that is why it’s mandatory to get a vaccine that is capable of doing that. You are beating around the bush here, the bottom line is you get a covid vaccine for yourself, not to save others but to save yourself. If you want to believe the vaccine prevents a person from getting the virus and spreading it, you need to say it’s your opinion, cause it most certainly isn’t a fact. I’m not an antivaxxer, it’s clear vaccines do work but we can’t pretend a vaccine does something it doesn’t. This is why I mentioned virtue in the first place cause I never said it does nothing I never said it doesn’t work. I said it doesn’t prevent spread or a person from getting it. You not understanding that and even after proof is shown, the only reason I could think of why you want to die on this hill is simply cause of virtue.

Can you provide the data source you are utilizing in order to make this claim?
I am interested in how they set out to prevent long COVID before they even knew it existed.
I am interested in a a vaccine being designed to not work like every other vaccine does (help prevent one person from getting sick, thereby helping prevent person-person transmission).
I am interested in why eradication would not be a goal for COVID, when it is for every other vaccine (BTW - smallpox is the ONLY virus to be considered eradicated at this time).

If I am not in the group that is "affected by COVID" (over 65, co-morbidities, etc, etc, etc), then why would taking the shot NOT be for the benefit of others? If it's of no benefit to me, then why would I take it?
The anti-vax arguments defeat themselves.

You keep insisting a vax doesn't prevent the spread or someone from getting it (yes, we know that it is indirect. That's how vaccines work), but your repetition doesn't make your false claim true.
There is literally TONS of data to show you are wrong.
Your "data" is your personal claim, which is of zero value in the face of medical science and statistics, TBH.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

If they tested and proved widespread efficacy, they don't have to do the tests all over again unless they are changing the vax or there is a significant change in the subjects the vax is administered to.
What other vaccine that is in current use do they do complete efficacy studies on when the vaccine hasn't changed?
I'm not sure what you are asking for that I haven't shown you. Most of the things you have asked for are under the presumption that vaccines do not work, which is obviously a non-starter.

Actually you're missing one important variable - the virus changing. Omicron becoming the dominant strain clearly reduced the efficacy of the vax. Luckily Omicron is something we can live with because between natural immunity, the vax and Omicron's lower lethality it's not wiping out 1% of the population. Of course some people tend to forget that one of the reasons Covid/Omicron is becoming less and less lethal is because of built up immunity from previous infections and the vax.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I don’t report family to authorities. We take care of our own issues. We for sure do have different virtues.

So you made him report the income and pay his child support and retro child support?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

So you made him report the income and pay his child support and retro child support?

Uh...secretary Rob is putting on his crime fighting cape

 

[djdilliodon!]

Can you provide the data source you are utilizing in order to make this claim?
I am interested in how they set out to prevent long COVID before they even knew it existed.
I am interested in a a vaccine being designed to not work like every other vaccine does (help prevent one person from getting sick, thereby helping prevent person-person transmission).
I am interested in why eradication would not be a goal for COVID, when it is for every other vaccine (BTW - smallpox is the ONLY virus to be considered eradicated at this time).

If I am not in the group that is "affected by COVID" (over 65, co-morbidities, etc, etc, etc), then why would taking the shot NOT be for the benefit of others? If it's of no benefit to me, then why would I take it?
The anti-vax arguments defeat themselves.

You keep insisting a vax doesn't prevent the spread or someone from getting it (yes, we know that it is indirect. That's how vaccines work), but your repetition doesn't make your false claim true.
There is literally TONS of data to show you are wrong.
Your "data" is your personal claim, which is of zero value in the face of medical science and statistics, TBH.

Then show me the data . Not all viruses can be stopped by a vaccine. How you don’t understand this is getting to be comical at this point. People who gets vaccinated still get the virus. That is proof in itself. Due to the amount of death and hospitalizations, that is what they made the vaccine for. To prevent death and hospitalization as much as possible and the numbers in efficacy show that. Doesn’t show that with transmission or a person contracting the virus. The USA has eradicated more than one virus. Other countries haven’t and people travel so small amounts of cases do happen. You can easily Google this as I did and see the list for yourself.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

What is the rule that it should take 5-12 years? Is it written?

And "the risks"?
How come a 1% death rate when talking about 330,000,000 potentially infected people is "nothing" (we lost 1.1 Million to COVID), but a vaccine that may cause the death of .00002% of people who take it (potential of 6,600 people) is a horrow show?

That seems to be a very selective concern to me.

Prove the 1% death rate

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, let this guy fund Chinese virus research, fund the WHO, and make your vaccines (the dude who did business with epstein after he was a convicted child pimp):

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...-private-office-asked-women-sexually-explicit