Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[G1911]

.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

The key difference being that data suggests taking the field in a war zone brings a significant risk of being shot.

I know someone who was attacked by a shark. Does that make it a reasonable thing for me to fear, and refuse to go swimming? No.

Anecdote is still not data. So I just looked it up. The CDC's best estimate for the 18-49 age group is 500 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. The worst scenario is 1,700 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. Every study has found most fatalities have multiple major comorbidities, are centered in the obese and weak, and risk increases with age (49 year's are lumped with 18's, and still only projects at 500 in a 1,000,000). These projections are for the overall, lumping in the healthy and unhealthy. They report a grand total of 6,513 deaths in the 30-39 age group, again, centered in those who were unhealthy to begin with, and studies (we can't question scientists, right?) suggest most of whom were obese. 1 in 2,000 infections is a .0005% risk (actually, the total risk is even less than that. CDC data tells us there are many more deaths in the 40-49 group than 30-39, almost triple in fact, and of course, many people will simply not get infected, but I'll even be generous and completely ignore these factors).

Estimates are estimates, projections are projections. Maybe the real is a bit higher, maybe it's a bit lower. Even if we go ahead and increase it 1,000%, far more than the worst case projections, the risk is still so tiny it's essentially a rounding error.

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.

Another great post, G1911.

I still truly wonder what is going on and why these vaccines are being pushed so hard on people?

Yesterday, I posted some links to stories about some who have gotten ill and were hospitalized after receiving the shots on Face Book and almost immediately I received notice from FB that they didn't meet community standards??
What could possibly be their "community standards" when factual and truthful links/stories from well known media sources are not allowed?

Also, during the recent hockey games and being bombarded with vaccine commercials every 5-10 minutes trying to convince and brainwash everyone into getting the vaccines, alluding to if you don't, life, as we once knew it, will never return to normal unless you do, why is their never any mention of the possible side affects like have already been mentioned in this thread?

If you watch other advertisements regarding other medications, the list of possible side affects and/or possible issues they mention is through the roof!
I believe the listing/the mentioning of possible side affects is a requirement by law but yet there is nothing, zero mention of any with these vaccines?

[packs]

I don't think anyone has said that you have to live a perfect life or that you have to approach something else differently because you've decided to wear a mask. Wearing a mask is still required in many public situations where I live. It is a sign of respect to the people around you. It is not a symbol that you are a saint.

[buymycards]

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is a huge, horrible life changing event to put on that mask. How can people possibly be free and live their life when they are wearing a mask? What a horrible thing to have to endure.

[vintagetoppsguy]

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

[irv]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Even the left leaning news is now changing their tune.

"The NIH knew the effectiveness of this drug and its relatives back in 2005 when it comes to Coronavirus'! SARS COV1 (what we know as causing SARS) and SARS COV2 (what we know as the virus that causes COVID 19) are almost 85% genetically the same. They had a drug that had decades of safe use treating other illness' and they refused to use it for political and monetary reasons"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol
Affiliations expand
PMID: 16115318

PMCID: PMC1232869

DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds"


Isn't the media wonderful.

"Jon Karl says aloud the obvious TRUTH about the BIASED media. They denied Covid FACTS to remain ANTI-TRUMP"

https://therightscoop.com/jon-karl-s...in-anti-trump/

"Emails show Dr. Fauci was WORRIED that NIH might have ties to Coronavirus spread in China last year"
https://therightscoop.com/emails-sho...ina-last-year/

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/st...03904%3Fs%3D21

Seems like a lot of unwelcomed heat is on Fauci lately. Hmm, I wonder why things are improving so fast?

[Peter_Spaeth]

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by G1911

The key difference being that data suggests taking the field in a war zone brings a significant risk of being shot.

I know someone who was attacked by a shark. Does that make it a reasonable thing for me to fear, and refuse to go swimming? No.

Anecdote is still not data. So I just looked it up. The CDC's best estimate for the 18-49 age group is 500 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. The worst scenario is 1,700 deaths per 1,000,000 infections. Every study has found most fatalities have multiple major comorbidities, are centered in the obese and weak, and risk increases with age (49 year's are lumped with 18's, and still only projects at 500 in a 1,000,000). These projections are for the overall, lumping in the healthy and unhealthy. They report a grand total of 6,513 deaths in the 30-39 age group, again, centered in those who were unhealthy to begin with, and studies (we can't question scientists, right?) suggest most of whom were obese. 1 in 2,000 infections is a .0005% risk (actually, the total risk is even less than that. CDC data tells us there are many more deaths in the 40-49 group than 30-39, almost triple in fact, and of course, many people will simply not get infected, but I'll even be generous and completely ignore these factors).

Estimates are estimates, projections are projections. Maybe the real is a bit higher, maybe it's a bit lower. Even if we go ahead and increase it 1,000%, far more than the worst case projections, the risk is still so tiny it's essentially a rounding error.

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.

Why don't you have your name in your post? What are you afraid of?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Why don't you have your name in your post? What are you afraid of?

If the person in post #514 doesn’t have to give their name then the person in post #512 certainly doesn’t have to give their name. Cliff Bowman.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

If the person in post #514 doesn’t have to give their name then the person in #515 certainly doesn’t have to give their name. Cliff Bowman.

+1

[frankbmd]

Forget the mask mandates.

A compulsory chastity belt mandate will do the trick.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

+1

I don't think a name is required for what is said in those 2-3 posts. But we can debate it if we want to.
That said everyone should be careful of the name rule at the top of every page. I look for statements directed at folks or companies, not general statements, in applying the rule.
I do wish everyone had their name next to their posts but it's not mandatory unless they don't follow that rule. Anyone can always pm about this stuff and I will take a look. Also, posts can be edited out by their creator in order not to have to put their names out there. That is always an option. Thanks for everyone's compliance to the most important rule on this forum.

.