Coronavirus COVID-19

[Gil Dobie]

From a university of Missouri link

History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they do occur, they usually happen within the first two months.

We have history with these vaccines?

With this type of vaccine,yes.

[UNI88]

From a university of Missouri link

History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they do occur, they usually happen within the first two months.

We have history with these vaccines?

With mRNA vaccines? Yes, nearly two decades.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong thread.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong thread- meant to post in memes thread.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong thread. Meant to post in memes thread.

[AZGrizFan]

We have history with these vaccines?

With this type of vaccine,yes.

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

So you’ll excuse me if i don’t have blind faith that there aren’t some long term consequences from these rapidly produced vaccines that we reaaaaaally don’t understand and won’t for years.

[Gil Dobie]

With this type of vaccine,yes.

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

So you’ll excuse me if i don’t have blind faith that there aren’t some long term consequences from these rapidly produced vaccines that we reaaaaaally don’t understand and won’t for years.

The vaccine worked as expected until variants came along. Boosters are for the variants. These vaccines disappear from your body within days of injection. It's good to question these shots, do your research and make your decision.

[Gil Dobie]

I never stood in line for testing or vaccines. Had appointments, 15 minutes between each person. People were told not to come early.

[Winterborn]

We have history with these vaccines?

With mRNA vaccines? Yes, nearly two decades.

My understanding is that yes they have been around for awhile (70's?) but that was only in a laboratory or very limited clinical trial (they degraded too fast and didn't provide the required immunity). This version is the first time one has been available to the general public.

[SeattleGriz]

With mRNA vaccines? Yes, nearly two decades.

My understanding is that yes they have been around for awhile (70's?) but that was only in a laboratory or very limited clinical trial (they degraded too fast and didn't provide the required immunity). This version is the first time one has been available to the general public.

Ding ding. This is my understanding as well. mRNA platform has been around for many years, but this would be the first successful application of a vaccine using the platform.

[kalm]

With mRNA vaccines? Yes, nearly two decades.

My understanding is that yes they have been around for awhile (70's?) but that was only in a laboratory or very limited clinical trial (they degraded too fast and didn't provide the required immunity). This version is the first time one has been available to the general public.

At least the late 80’s. Research saw just a little interest and funding for a couple of decades. It got ramped up after SARS 1 which may be a coincidence but it was also about the same time gain of function research increased. That’s how the Fauci-China lab conspiracy got legs. SARS 1 freaked the virologists the fuck out (a pandemic became a matter of when not if) Obama wouldn’t allow gain of function research on US soil so Fauci found a work around and secured funding to do it in China.

^^^just my take.

[Winterborn]

My understanding is that yes they have been around for awhile (70's?) but that was only in a laboratory or very limited clinical trial (they degraded too fast and didn't provide the required immunity). This version is the first time one has been available to the general public.

At least the late 80’s. Research saw just a little interest and funding for a couple of decades. It got ramped up after SARS 1 which may be a coincidence but it was also about the same time gain of function research increased. That’s how the Fauci-China lab conspiracy got legs. SARS 1 freaked the virologists the fuck out (a pandemic became a matter of when not if) Obama wouldn’t allow gain of function research on US soil so Fauci found a work around and secured funding to do it in China.

^^^just my take.

If you are going to outsource something, it might make sense for the place you pick to have a good safety record.

[kalm]

At least the late 80’s. Research saw just a little interest and funding for a couple of decades. It got ramped up after SARS 1 which may be a coincidence but it was also about the same time gain of function research increased. That’s how the Fauci-China lab conspiracy got legs. SARS 1 freaked the virologists the fuck out (a pandemic became a matter of when not if) Obama wouldn’t allow gain of function research on US soil so Fauci found a work around and secured funding to do it in China.

^^^just my take.

If you are going to outsource something, it might make sense for the place you pick to have a good safety record.

[AZGrizFan]

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

So you’ll excuse me if i don’t have blind faith that there aren’t some long term consequences from these rapidly produced vaccines that we reaaaaaally don’t understand and won’t for years.

The vaccine worked as expected until variants came along. Boosters are for the variants. These vaccines disappear from your body within days of injection. It's good to question these shots, do your research and make your decision.

Bullshit.

[Gil Dobie]

My understanding is that yes they have been around for awhile (70's?) but that was only in a laboratory or very limited clinical trial (they degraded too fast and didn't provide the required immunity). This version is the first time one has been available to the general public.

Ding ding. This is my understanding as well. mRNA platform has been around for many years, but this would be the first successful application of a vaccine using the platform.

Moderna was formed in 2010, for the primary study of mRNA Vaccines. Clinical trials in 2013 for Rabies Vaccine, 2015 for the flu vaccine.

[SeattleGriz]

Ding ding. This is my understanding as well. mRNA platform has been around for many years, but this would be the first successful application of a vaccine using the platform.

Moderna was formed in 2010, for the primary study of mRNA Vaccines. Clinical trials in 2013 for Rabies Vaccine, 2015 for the flu vaccine.

Yes, and Moderna was seriously underwater with their mRNA tech. Warpspeed was a gift for them. Nature article from 2018 talking about the possibilities. mRNA platform for successful vaccines is still very young.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

[89Hen]

I never stood in line for testing or vaccines. Had appointments, 15 minutes between each person. People were told not to come early.

Same here, except we had to wait 45 minutes to get the test even with an appointment, 15 minutes between each person and people were told not to come early.

[SeattleGriz]

Best comment I've seen is "why isn't that dog wearing a mask?"

[JohnStOnge]

With this type of vaccine,yes.

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

They always expressed uncertainty about how long the protective effects would last and they always recognized the possibility of new variants would arise that the vaccines would not work as well against. They were not wrong about its effectiveness against the variant(s) existing at the time it was tested.

[JohnStOnge]

I have been hearing reporters interpret the results of a recent study about adverse child mental health outcomes associated with school closures and lockdowns as meaning the school closures were the wrong decision. You can see one article on the study at https://www.edweek.org/leadership/new-r ... th/2022/01. But the study does not say that.

There is a link to the study in the article. In the study, you can find this statement:

"The potential epidemiologic benefits of school closures during broader social lockdown measures for controlling infectious diseases should be balanced with the potential for adverse mental health symptoms and health behaviors among children and adolescents."

In other words, the adverse impacts of school closures are a factor in the decision. But the adverse health impact of leaving schools open is also a factor. That's not saying the school closures were the wrong decision.

Here is an article on a study from 2020 where the authors concluded that school lockdowns reduced the number of COVID-19 deaths:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/29/sch ... d19-cases/

There is a link to the study in the article. A quote from the study paper:

"The absolute effects associated with school closure during the 16-day period after school closure (days 27-42), which were calculated using model estimates with the assumption of linear growth, yielded 19.4 deaths per 100 000 that would have occurred if schools had remained open (Table 4). Compared with the 6.8 deaths per 100 000 estimated from the school closure model."

The authors estimated that the death rate was reduced by a factor of about three. That's a big reduction.

Full disclosure: I believe re-opening the schools after the holiday break right in the midst of a huge COVID-19 surge was the wrong decision. I like a suggestion made by Dr. Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine during an interview I saw. He suggested waiting until the Omicron surge wanes to start school again then extend the session into the summer to make up the time.

But whether you agree with me or not, all should understand that determining that many children suffered some adverse mental health consequences from school closures does not automatically mean the school closures were not the right decision. Indications are that the decision significantly reduced the number of COVID-19 deaths. There was no available decision with no down side.

[BDKJMU]

I have been hearing reporters interpret the results of a recent study about adverse child mental health outcomes associated with school closures and lockdowns as meaning the school closures were the wrong decision. You can see one article on the study at https://www.edweek.org/leadership/new-r ... th/2022/01. But the study does not say that.

There is a link to the study in the article. In the study, you can find this statement:

"The potential epidemiologic benefits of school closures during broader social lockdown measures for controlling infectious diseases should be balanced with the potential for adverse mental health symptoms and health behaviors among children and adolescents."

In other words, the adverse impacts of school closures are a factor in the decision. But the adverse health impact of leaving schools open is also a factor. That's not saying the school closures were the wrong decision.

Here is an article on a study from 2020 where the authors concluded that school lockdowns reduced the number of COVID-19 deaths:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/29/sch ... d19-cases/

There is a link to the study in the article. A quote from the study paper:

"The absolute effects associated with school closure during the 16-day period after school closure (days 27-42), which were calculated using model estimates with the assumption of linear growth, yielded 19.4 deaths per 100 000 that would have occurred if schools had remained open (Table 4). Compared with the 6.8 deaths per 100 000 estimated from the school closure model."

The authors estimated that the death rate was reduced by a factor of about three. That's a big reduction.

Full disclosure: I believe re-opening the schools after the holiday break right in the midst of a huge COVID-19 surge was the wrong decision. I like a suggestion made by Dr. Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine during an interview I saw. He suggested waiting until the Omicron surge wanes to start school again then extend the session into the summer to make up the time.

But whether you agree with me or not, all should understand that determining that many children suffered some adverse mental health consequences from school closures does not automatically mean the school closures were not the right decision. Indications are that the decision significantly reduced the number of COVID-19 deaths. There was no available decision with no down side.

[AZGrizFan]

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

They always expressed uncertainty about how long the protective effects would last and they always recognized the possibility of new variants would arise that the vaccines would not work as well against. They were not wrong about its effectiveness against the variant(s) existing at the time it was tested.

OK. Let’s say I stipulate that fact (which I don’t think is true, but whatever). So with a virus that’s morphing faster than they can develop vaccines to combat it, what’s the point? You gonna get a jab for every variant that comes along? No thanks….

[bobbythekidd]

They always expressed uncertainty about how long the protective effects would last and they always recognized the possibility of new variants would arise that the vaccines would not work as well against. They were not wrong about its effectiveness against the variant(s) existing at the time it was tested.

OK. Let’s say I stipulate that fact (which I don’t think is true, but whatever). So with a virus that’s morphing faster than they can develop vaccines to combat it, what’s the point? You gonna get a jab for every variant that comes along? No thanks….

Alternatively, what you said could be written: If we all got the jab it was designed for, we would be much less likely to see these variants.

Our slow adoption and resistance to the jab allowed this.

[kalm]

OK. Let’s say I stipulate that fact (which I don’t think is true, but whatever). So with a virus that’s morphing faster than they can develop vaccines to combat it, what’s the point? You gonna get a jab for every variant that comes along? No thanks….

Alternatively, what you said could be written: If we all got the jab it was designed for, we would be much less likely to see these variants.

Our slow adoption and resistance to the jab allowed this.

You got that shit right, Bobby!

And yes…if successive jabs continue to reduce my risks of infection or symptoms without dramatic side effects of course I’ll get them. It’s just not that big of a deal.

[SeattleGriz]

The vaccine was tested so thoroughly that it didn’t work anything like they thought it would work. They were wrong about it’s longevity, they were wrong about it’s effectiveness, they were wrong about it’s ability to prevent you from getting infected, they were wrong about a shitload.

They always expressed uncertainty about how long the protective effects would last and they always recognized the possibility of new variants would arise that the vaccines would not work as well against. They were not wrong about its effectiveness against the variant(s) existing at the time it was tested.

Bourlas is on record stating if you get vaxxed, you won't catch Covid. That sure doesn't seem like expressing uncertainty. Don't try to rewrite history.