Vaccine theory

[Jimmy Cliff]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

I tend to agree, but have a question before I answer that convincingly:  

 

I approach this from the point of view of vulnerable unvaccinateds.  They are at a higher risk of contracting the infection from other unvaccinateds than from vaccinateds (I think the risk is at least 2x).  So, if I am an immunocompromised individual who cannot get a vaccine, shouldn't I be more wary of the unvaccinated than the vaccinated?  How does this get sorted out?

 

If I am an immunocompromised person on a plane, I would rather sit next to a unvaccinated individual who has a recent negative PCR Test rather than a vaccinated individual who could be an asymptomatic spreader .

[Jimmy Cliff]

Now if someone says even the vaccinated person has to show a recent negative PCR Test, this again makes the vaccine passport pointless!

[Real McCoy]

10 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) Even now, Covid 19 vaccine benefits far outweigh rare risks.  To specifically answer why I am not talking about the rare vaccine downsides - ab aapka kaam bhi main karoon kya ;-)?  

 

(2) WRT to the last paragraph, if you read the whole article, it is saying that less dangerous variants are realistically possible.  It's just evolution at work and it's the same thing that happens with every infectious agent/organism.  We just don't know yet and must be prepared for every eventuality until we learn to keep transmission low enough to slow the spread down to where variant occurrence will be stamped out.    

 

(3) As far the UK data - it is clear that it is the unvaccinated that are being hit the most by Delta and are transmitting it more.  

 

May I know from where you pull these bar charts from. Always link the source please

[Real McCoy]

9 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

If I am an immunocompromised person on a plane, I would rather sit next to a unvaccinated individual who has a recent negative PCR Test rather than a vaccinated individual who could be an asymptomatic spreader .

when the first wave of bs hit, they said people who are normal were considered possible asymptomatic cases. This is a denial of rights from my POV. This is like calling someone guilty before innocent.

anways, when the second wave of bs hit (I consider this real and due to vaccine), all the vaccinated individuals are now asymptomatic and rightly so. It is the constant pressure created by the media owned by globalists that made this crisis happen. Those who still insist on proving vaccination helps are part of it whether they know it or not.

[BacktoCricaddict]

15 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

If I am an immunocompromised person on a plane, I would rather sit next to a unvaccinated individual who has a recent negative PCR Test rather than a vaccinated individual who could be an asymptomatic spreader .

Actually, I would rather sit next to a vaccinated individual with a negative RT-PCR, because these RT-PCRs could be false negative, and there is a greater chance to catch it from an unvaccinated individual with a false negative.  After all, we must think about every minuscule thing that could go wrong.   

 

On a related note, if private entities want to impose a vaccine requirement, I have no issue with it, but not for government services.  Second, the flight situation is just one thing.  What about in a mall?  Restaurant?  Would you keep asking everyone for recent RT-PCR negative to walk into a mall?  What if they had a false-negative?  What if they had a negative from two days ago, but were exposed yesterday?  All of this would be moot if we reached herd immunity through vaccinations (not through natural death and devastation).  After all, it is clear that transmission slows down tremendously with more people vaccinated, thus shielding the unvaccinated but immunocompromised. 

 

 

 

So, if one really cares about unvaccinated immunocompromised people, they would go get a vaccine and be part of this shield.    

 

 

Edited August 6, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[Real McCoy]

nice graphics bro. i thought you were only into bar charts. still no substance

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Actually, I would rather sit next to a vaccinated individual with a negative RT-PCR, because these RT-PCRs could be false negative, and there is a greater chance to catch it from an unvaccinated individual with a false negative.  After all, we must think about every minuscule thing that could go wrong.   

 

On a related note, if private entities want to impose a vaccine requirement, I have no issue with it, but not for government services.  Second, the flight situation is just one thing.  What about in a mall?  Restaurant?  Would you keep asking everyone for recent RT-PCR negative to walk into a mall?  What if they had a false-negative?  What if they had a negative from two days ago, but were exposed yesterday?  All of this would be moot if we reached herd immunity through vaccinations (not through natural death and devastation).  After all, it is clear that transmission slows down tremendously with more people vaccinated, thus shielding the unvaccinated but immunocompromised. 

 

 

 

So, if one really cares about unvaccinated immunocompromised people, they would go get a vaccine and be part of this shield.    

 

 

 

There are arguments that herd immunity is off the table now. Short lived vaccine induced immunity and the emergence of new variants will probably ensure that. Even the MSM has admitted that vaccinations could in fact push the evolution of an immune escape variant. 

 

 

 

 

As for the image showing the contagion not freely passing via immunized to susceptible, I am not sure that is valid anymore after this.

 

 

 

And this:

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

The study that CDC used to suggest that transmission is the same for vaccinateds vs. unvaccinateds does not actually say that.  Walensky got it wrong.  Terrible messaging by the CDC. Media hysteria, of course, followed.  

 

Those and other results show that vaccinateds transmit 2.5-fold lower than unvaccinateds.  Taken together with the clear data that vaccinateds also get infected at 8x lower rates, the chances of you catching something from a vaccinated individual is much less than from an unvaccinated individual.  

 

https://reason.com/2021/08/04/the-evidence-cited-by-the-cdc-does-not-show-that-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-covid-19-carriers-are-equally-likely-to-transmit-the-virus/?itm_source=parsely-api

 

Walensky disregarded that caveat in the press release the CDC issued when it published the Provincetown study, saying the researchers found "Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people." Still, she did not claim that vaccinated carriers were as infectious as unvaccinated carriers. "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," she said. "This finding is concerning and was a pivotal discovery leading to CDC's updated mask recommendation."

During a White House briefing on Monday, Walensky likewise did not say vaccinated and unvaccinated carriers are equally infectious. Citing the Provincetown outbreak, she said the "higher viral loads" associated with the delta variant "are seen not just in those who are unvaccinated and infected but also, and importantly, in the small proportion of those who are vaccinated and become infected." She said that indicates "vaccinated people can spread the virus if they get a breakthrough infection," although "the odds of them getting sick in the first place are far lower than [the odds for] those who are unvaccinated."

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Media completely misrepresents the "vaccines drive mutants" idea.  Vaccines keep replication low.  If the vaccine keeps virus levels low, even mutated viruses, the infected person won't produce enough to spread to other people. 

Edited August 6, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

@Jimmy Cliff, one for the points you bring up is that the vaccines were not adequately tested.  Let's take Moderna or Pfizer for example.  ~ 50000 trial participants in Phase III.  Pretty much every post-market side-effect has been occurring at a <1/50000 rate.  So, they would've been missed in the trials.

 

That being the case, how many trial participants should have been used, and for how many months/years should the side-effects have been documented before EUA/full approval?  What are your criteria?

[Jimmy Cliff]

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

 

 

Using CT values to calculate viral load is crude and unreliable.  Someone needs to teach Walensky how PCR works.

[BacktoCricaddict]

BTW, I must publicly thank you, @Jimmy Cliff for making me reconsider my own biases and conclusions and keep finding data and applying it to my knowledge of molecular biology (extensive) and immunology (still learning a blot) to support my positions.  It is good to argue civilly. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

7 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@Jimmy Cliff, one for the points you bring up is that the vaccines were not adequately tested.  Let's take Moderna or Pfizer for example.  ~ 50000 trial participants in Phase III.  Pretty much every post-market side-effect has been occurring at a <1/50000 rate.  So, they would've been missed in the trials.

 

That being the case, how many trial participants should have been used, and for how many months/years should the side-effects have been documented before EUA/full approval?  What are your criteria?

 

Sorry but I can't accept statements like these unless there is certainty that each and every post vaccination adverse event unrelated to Covid is being captured and documented. Or at least the vast majority of them are. Talking about India, it wouldn't be wrong to say that most of the people haven't even heard of AEFI. And I've posted how reporting such events is pretty much a farce in India. In such a scenario, how exactly is it possible for us to determine the rarity of such events? And frankly the vaccine manufacturers didn't exactly cover themselves in glory when one of the volunteers actually reported neuro side effects during the trials.

 

 

 

I don't have any issues with the number of trial participants but whether the trials were designed to identify a reduction in hospitalization/deaths is up for debate.

 

 

 

Pfizer themselves acknowledged that it is "difficult to evaluate whether the vaccine reduces the severity of COVID-19.” So if the number of severe cases in both the placebo and vaccine groups were statistically insignificant (3 compared to 1), can we say for sure that the trials confirm the vaccine reduces the chances of hospitalization/death due to Covid?

 

 

 

In terms of documenting the side effects prior to full approval, we should take about as much time as we do for any other vaccine. Till then, it can be available as an option for people under EUA without any coercion either from the Govt/Private sector. Let people do a cost/benefit analysis for themselves or by discussing it with doctors whom they trust instead of shoving it down their throat by indirect coercion. Especially when the vaccine manufacturers have complete immunity from liability.

[Real McCoy]

@Jimmy Cliff backtocovidaddict posted an article from reason.org. On its website, it says its part of the reason foundation and I found this from sourcewatch

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation

 

Apparently its tied into Koch brothers (I encountered this name in some other shady activity I can't remember). You might have better info on them. He was one of the board of directors in rockefeller university. Its not just rockefeller. Its a tight knit group where they have their freemason friends starting different foundations and non profits to do their psyntiphic rejerch.

[ash]

@Jimmy Cliff I would like to understand where you stand on Covid. Do you think

 

A) Covid itself is not real, it is just a flu that people are overhyping

B) Covid is real, but the vaccines are hoax, it doesn't work

C) Vaccines work, but they are not safe with many side effects.

 

Choose your answer A or B or C. 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 hour ago, ash said:

@Jimmy Cliff I would like to understand where you stand on Covid. Do you think

 

A) Covid itself is not real, it is just a flu that people are overhyping

B) Covid is real, but the vaccines are hoax, it doesn't work

C) Vaccines work, but they are not safe with many side effects.

 

Choose your answer A or B or C. 

 

 

 

My stance is closest to C but it's a bit more complicated than that. If I were to rephrase it I would say these vaccines may offer short term strain specific immunity if one somehow manages to evade Covid after the first shot.

 

Not saying vaccine directly causes Covid but have come across too many cases where people got positive and required hospitalization within a couple of weeks after the first jab. Now whether that happened because they caught it from someone at the Vaccination Center, or if they let their guard down or if there is immunosuppression or increased vulnerability after the first jab, I don't know. Regardless, an extra bit of caution is definitely in order after the first shot.

 

The safety concerns otherwise pertain to short term adverse effects which now include blood  clots, Myocarditis, Guillain barre syndrome and so on. Now we are assured all these events are rare but I do not think we have a system in place where we are tracking each and every adverse reaction post vaccination making it difficult it make a risk/benefit analysis for these vaccines in the short term. Moreover, long term safety profile is pretty much unknown for all of these vaccines some of which use a technology that has never been used on humans till date. Last but not the least, there is a possibility that these vaccines might make us more vulnerable against the newer strains in the future.

 

 

 

[Real McCoy]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

My stance is closest to C but it's a bit more complicated than that. If I were to rephrase it I would say these vaccines may offer short term strain specific immunity if one somehow manages to evade Covid after the first shot.

 

Not saying vaccine directly causes Covid but have come across too many cases where people got positive and required hospitalization within a couple of weeks after the first jab. Now whether that happened because they caught it from someone at the Vaccination Center, or if they let their guard down or if there is immunosuppression or increased vulnerability after the first jab, I don't know. Regardless, an extra bit of caution is definitely in order after the first shot.

 

The safety concerns otherwise pertain to short term adverse effects which now include blood  clots, Myocarditis, Guillain barre syndrome and so on. Now we are assured all these events are rare but I do not think we have a system in place where we are tracking each and every adverse reaction post vaccination making it difficult it make a risk/benefit analysis for these vaccines in the short term. Moreover, long term safety profile is pretty much unknown for all of these vaccines some of which use a technology that has never been used on humans till date. Last but not the least, there is a possibility that these vaccines might make us more vulnerable against the newer strains in the future.

 

 

 

Not a good response dude. He TOLD you to pick between 3 choices but here you are writing an essay not good

[Jimmy Cliff]

3 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

@Jimmy Cliff backtocovidaddict posted an article from reason.org. On its website, it says its part of the reason foundation and I found this from sourcewatch

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation

 

Apparently its tied into Koch brothers (I encountered this name in some other shady activity I can't remember). You might have better info on them. He was one of the board of directors in rockefeller university. Its not just rockefeller. Its a tight knit group where they have their freemason friends starting different foundations and non profits to do their psyntiphic rejerch.

 

All roads lead to the same criminals unfortunately. Recently found out the head of ICMR's National Task Force is also the executive director of INCLEN Trust which is funded by the usual suspects. Same story with PHFI as well.

 

 

 

 

[ash]

49 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

My stance is closest to C but it's a bit more complicated than that. If I were to rephrase it I would say these vaccines may offer short term strain specific immunity if one somehow manages to evade Covid after the first shot.

 

Not saying vaccine directly causes Covid but have come across too many cases where people got positive and required hospitalization within a couple of weeks after the first jab. Now whether that happened because they caught it from someone at the Vaccination Center, or if they let their guard down or if there is immunosuppression or increased vulnerability after the first jab, I don't know. Regardless, an extra bit of caution is definitely in order after the first shot.

 

The safety concerns otherwise pertain to short term adverse effects which now include blood  clots, Myocarditis, Guillain barre syndrome and so on. Now we are assured all these events are rare but I do not think we have a system in place where we are tracking each and every adverse reaction post vaccination making it difficult it make a risk/benefit analysis for these vaccines in the short term. Moreover, long term safety profile is pretty much unknown for all of these vaccines some of which use a technology that has never been used on humans till date. Last but not the least, there is a possibility that these vaccines might make us more vulnerable against the newer strains in the future.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. Most of Our vaccination centers are not properly ventilated with no crowd control, so they is a high chance that people just get Covid because of the crowd at the center. Also proper education is required, since many think they are immediately immune to the virus after the first dose. Apart from these two, the vaccine do not actually cause virus. 

 

Regarding the safety, yes there are risks. It just comes down to a personal choice, whether you are willing to risk covid, or take the jab. 

 

Good to know that you think the vaccines work to some extent and covid is real, unlike some others here who are just dealing in conspiracy theories.