Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Vaccine Turnabout: Will There Be Rage and Who Will Feel It?
First: I took the two-shot Pfizer last spring. I didn’t really want to, but I have a special needs sister who had been in quarantine for months and the shots were required to restart family visits. I would have licked Tabasco off the rim of a garbage can on Bourbon Street if that was what was required to see my sister. Other than some aches and fever after the second shot, I have no identifiable vaccine issues.
Second: I had Covid during the holidays this year. Probably the “O” version, but they don’t really test for that specifically. Worse than a cold, but not as bad as the flu. I believe I am fully recovered.
Third: I have known several people that died with/from Covid — mostly older and with other health issues.
Fourth: I know one person that had a massive stroke within 36 hours of the Moderna vaccine and died. She was older, but generally in good health. Was it vaccine-related? Who knows, but her family certainly thinks so.
So the news now is that the vaccine doesn’t exactly work: if vaccinated, you can still pass on the virus, can get other variants (quibbles over if the vaccine “lessens” the severity of the illness). Further, the vaccine may cause heart issues; the vaccine may affect women’s cycles and of course, since the vaccine hasn’t been around long term, we will be finding out if it has adverse long-term consequences in real-time. What if it does? Excess cancer, heart problems, blood clots, infertility, strokes, etc?
Trump touted the vaccine as a scientific triumph. Big Pharma has pushed the vaccine as virtually risk-free (but with a liability shield carve out — just in case they are wrong). Big Government has fast-tracked approvals and agency recommendations. (Vaccinate your 5-year-olds!) The Democrats in power (state and federal) have pushed vaccines in every way imaginable.
I’m just running rabbit trails in my mind here. What if becomes more apparent that the negative health consequences from the vaccine exceed the (what appears to be diminishing) positives? Will the vaccinated population feel duped? Will they be angry? To whom will their anger be directed? Trump? Dems? Pharma? I am sure any specific constituent’s anger will be channeled thru their regular tribal preferences. Dems will blame Trump and Pharma, conservatives will blame Big Pharma and Big Government (and maybe Trump too).
Will we approach a critical mass of vaccine remorse? If it comes to that, how will the displeasure manifest? (You can’t vote everybody out). Will it matter? Will the people who point out the mounting negatives be labeled as crazies and sent to the proverbial gulags? Will it just be one big gaslighting by those in power? Demonstrations? Riots? Or will the populace just accept that we did what we could with the info we had at the time so oh well?
Published in General
Where are the data showing that? (Hopefully it’s not one of those articles that send you down a never-ending trail of link after link after link while never showing any substantive data.)
Do you have a link of a Pfizer CEO saying his vaccines are close to worthless?
I think it would be a good idea for Pfizer to be working on one that is tailored to Omicron, but I doubt anyone expects it to be a cure. That’s not what vaccines are for.
Jerry posted a link in comment #18.
“Very limited protection, if any” sounds close to worthless to me.
And then 3 doses with the booster: reasonable protection against hospitalization and death but less protection against infection.
You can listen here:
Covid vaccines don’t work.
I have the first and second shot. That is what they told me to do and would protect me. I am not so sure now about endless boosters.
Thanks for the link. I was not aware of that interview.
I can’t even imagine the thought process that would lead someone to get “close to worthless” as a summary conclusion out of all that. It’s not uncommon for vaccines to require spaced repeats to be effective. That’s the way our immune systems are made. They tend to take threats more seriously and take more measures to develop long-term B and T cells when they sees that the threats are repeats. Everyone’s immune system is different, but that’s a common theme in all of them. If people don’t like that, they should raise their objections with the God who made us. Or with the evolutionary process that made us. Or some combination of the two.
I wish the Pfizer guy was speaking from data, though. One can’t really think properly about this stuff without getting quantitative.
Some of the vaccines with spaced repeats aren’t the same thing in each shot. Some of them are primers that help the later rounds “stick” or make the antibodies stable. It’s why kids will get 3-4 HIB shots but never need a booster for the rest of their life. Some of the shots aren’t actually vaccines, but preps for the vaccines.
The Tetanus that requires a booster every 5 years is not like that. It’s the same shot over and over, but with 5 years of life.
6 months or less for “boosters” and multiple doses of the same shot up front are not comparable to HIB or Tetanus.
I don’t know why someone your age would get endless boosters. An older person or one with a a badly deteriorated immune system might need endless boosters to keep antibody levels up, because they might not have the luxury of waiting for B and T cells to produce more antibodies on demand. It does take a few days for that to happen, even in persons with healthy immune systems, and for some vulnerable people, that’s not fast enough or good enough. But healthier people can just put up with the nose and throat infection while they wait for protections to develop to keep the disease from progressing to the lungs, which is where things get serious.
It seems to work similarly with flu vaccines, too.
Of course, we’ll learn more as time goes on. It’s risky to make predictions about what the vaccines will do for you two years out, when the vaccines haven’t yet been out for two years.
It’s called common sense.
I’m not knowledgeable about “preps” for vaccines. Do you have an example so I can go look up more information about it?
But sure, these things are all comparable. Comparable does not mean identical. I’m a firm advocate for the view that anything can be compared to anything. You can even compare apples to bumblebees. They have things in common, and they have differences.
As an old person I’m used to being prodded annually to get the flu shot. I don’t remember any of my grown, now middle-aged, children ever relating to me that they get the flu shot. What’s the story on what age groups typically get the flu shot. The Covid shot sounds similar with some increase percentage-wise in the severity numbers.
They aren’t called “preps”. That’s me trying to communicate concepts. When I did some research into the novelty of mRNA vaccines to see what others had been used (because people kept insisting this wasn’t the first mRNA vaccine), I found a virology textbook text that I read a bit of the overview on types of vaccines. One of the types of vaccines was where inoculating with too much viral matter would make one sick but the low doses weren’t enough to build up long term immunity. One of the solutions to the problem involved additives that prolonged the immune response. But given in conjunction with the viral matter didn’t always produce good results, but separating them did produce desirable effects.
I think this problem was in actual viral matter vaccines – either attenuated or inactive. The ones I remember having multiple rounds are MMR and HIB. MMR is inactive, HIB is attenuated.
But neither of these require boosters after the initial rounds.
Flu vaccines are not boosters. I do one of those each year. The problem is that the booster is not the same as an annual flu vax.
And they want to make me take it. Ordering me to take it means I don’t want to take it.
That’s a good question. I’m not going to mount a search expedition, but now I’m going to keep an eye out for that info.
True, but some of the underlying issues are similar.
Common sense is invoked only when there are no arguments or reasons.
She has a history of wacky claims:
https://vaxopedia.org/2017/07/28/who-is-stephanie-seneff/
one vax nut quoting another isn’t the advancement of knowledge….
she publishes in predatory open access publications and even Consumer Reports scientists have labelled her “claims as “nutty”, “truly unhinged”, and “dangerous”. She is known to misrepresent other’s work.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/11/09/not-even-wrong-seneff-and-samsel-debunked-seralini-crew-12126
Your analysis was wrong then &is wrong now-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/covid-poses-higher-risk-of-myocarditis-than-vaccine-in-male-teens-us-study
With medical judgment like that -Do not let your malpractice policy lapse:
Omicron vs. the Unvaccinated and the Vaccinated
The unvaccinated are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized when infected.
“The ICU occupancy rate per million is 135.6 for unvaccinated people and just 9.2 for those who have gotten two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. So vaccination reduces the ICU risk by 93.2 percent.
An analysis by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) similarly found that “the risk of being admitted to hospital for Omicron cases was lower for those who had received 2 doses of a vaccine (65% lower) compared to those who had not received any vaccination.” The risk “was lower still among those who had received 3 doses of vaccine (81% lower).”
https://reason.com/2022/01/06/omicron-vs-the-unvaccinated-and-the-vaccinated/
So my analysis, based on peer reviewed studies YOU linked to, is wrong because the guardian is reporting on an un reviewed study?
Your consistency on valid sourcing is suspect.
Wow. I didn’t know she was out there, but that could be because I ignore 99.9% of links contributing to vaccine and/or COVID hysteria. She really is a nutter, I don’t care where she got her (EE) degree.
I’m a gardener. Not an “organic” gardener (according to California regs — I purposefully ignore anything California regs suggest), so I occasionally use Roundup. I always find it amusing the fear engendered about glyphosate when you can spray it on weeds and four days later replant with your precious starts in the same soil and they’ll grow and thrive.
So plants can tolerate whatever remains of Roundup in the soil four days later, but people who get near the stuff will either become autistic or die, die, die!!!
Everyone just needs to calm down. You’re going to die of something. Chances are it won’t be Roundup exposure. Sheesh.
So, it looks like my doc was right again (although the peer review is still forthcoming, according to the article). She’s a good doc. Very sensible.
It seems common sense to me that anything the vaccine might do to you, the commie flu can do worse. An infection has many, many more spike proteins floating around in your body than the vaccine can possibly produce.
I maintain my analysis that population risk of Covid myocarditis requires knowing the risk of getting clinical Covid. These numbers are not different from the ones I used in my analysis.
Again, the risk to my 12 year old of getting Covid-myocarditis is his risk of getting clinical Covid AND THEN the risk of clinical Covid developing myocarditis. Which makes letting my kid risk Covid FAR LESS RISKY than the vaccine.
The difference is that the myocarditis rates were determined in kids who showed up for clinical care – ie not asymptomatic. They define that in all the studies on this.
They have not extrapolated to all kids who test positive with COVID on a drive thru test (including asymptomatically). The definition of clinical Covid is given and doesn’t include the asymptomatic.
Given that kids generally have not had a high risk of symptomatic Covid, the risk of developing myocarditis from it is smaller than the risk of clinical Covid developing myocarditis.
You misinterpreted the CDC’s data-as I pointed out in the referenced thread:
Per the CDC : “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 ” For those less than 16 the risk was 0.133%
– while you state “the CDC has estimated reporting rates of 62.75 (0.006%) and 50.2 (0.005%)myocarditis cases per 1 million mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the 12-17 and 18-24 year-old age groups, respectively’”. I don’t know how math works where you are from- but around here 0.133% is GREATER THAN 0.006%-like 22 times greater
Your response was we have ha more COVID than reported so the numbers are artificially high BUT unless we have 22X more UNREPORTED COVID cases than have been reported (impossible since that would require a population more than the USA- we have had 66 million cases- 22x66M= 1.45B) the risk of myocarditis from COVID is HIGHER than the risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vax
I support your decision not to vaccinate your 12 year old. But, my doc’s point (and the as yet un-peer reviewed study seems to suggest) is that the risk of myocarditis is higher from getting a Covid infection than from getting the vaccine. That’s all. It seems the risk is pretty low in either case, but as I said before, it appears that anything the vaccine might do to you, the infection is likely to do worse. And I’m not sure anyone knows the myocarditis risks from omicron, so there’s that.
Nobody knows nuthin’. We’re all doing the best we can with limited understanding.
No- since about 1/2 of the cases are asymptomatic you can rightly cut the CDC COVID myocarditis rate in half- BUT THE RATE OF COVID MYOCARDITIS WAS 22X HIGHER- so if you cut it in half it is ONLY 11X HIGHER- that is still a large increase in risk vs getting the vax.
Your number directly contradicts the AHA study YOU LINKED TO. You are aware of that, right?
I can accept that we know nothing.