Coronavirus

1,239,118 Views | 17004 Replies | Last: 10 min ago by Wayland
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hope we can drop the narrative of importance of increasing the percentage vaccinated now (from the completely acceptable level we are at now that is). Not that there has ever been a scientific reason for the continued restrictions, but with the cdc finally following the science and admitting natural immunity, that combined with those already vaccinated, it is not just illogical but also anti science to continue restrictions. All those who disagree need to remove those lawn signs and car stickers effective immediately.
Wayland
How long do you want to ignore this user?


How is that 4th dose working out for you?

Mandatory wild-type boosters (looking at you private colleges) for those not otherwise at risk continues to make no sense... and yet U.S. public health refuses to pivot.

It is no wonder no one trusts them.

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://rumble.com/vqeb4m-renowned-virologist-warns-of-collapse-of-our-health-system-due-to-complicat.html

Geert Vanden Bossche; many consider to be the preeminent vaccine expert in the world. The focus of his discussion is to not receive one more COVID vaccine and to strengthen your innate immune system.

Note: Ties into Wayland's data above......not to mention Ivermectin usage in India. South Africa may be hydroxy or both.
Daviewolf83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I saw this list on a Tweet today and it is definitely a list I agree should be implemented.

PLAN:
1) Increase availability of early treatments <== instead of masks and tests for all, this is where the government should focus their efforts
2) Stop asymptomatic testing <== my one exception is for people who work closely with at risk populations
3) End contact tracing <== when you have high transmissibility, like Omicron, it is not a beneficial practice
4) End mask mandate <= nothing more I can say about this - if people want to wear them, fine, but no mandates
5) End vax passports <== never should have had them and they should always have included people with prior infection
6) No school closures <== schools should NEVER have been closed
7) End 10 day quarantine
8) Remove plastic barriers <== these actually have been shown to increase transmission, due to interruptions to airflow
9) Stop scrubbing surfaces <== we have known this is not helpful for months
10) Under 65, return to normal!
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Da***Wolf, you are SPOT ON! Per Steve.
Bellhenmar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The thing that really pisses me off is the school we choose to support sets up a recruiting weekend and puts on the invitation if you have not been vaccinated against Covid you aren't allowed inside the Murphy Center. I personally know of several recruits we would not get because of this one sentence. And does our school not understand the risk of myocarditis, especially in the age frame we are recruiting? Just stupid.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

The thing that really pisses me off is the school we choose to support sets up a recruiting weekend and puts on the invitation if you have not been vaccinated against Covid you aren't allowed inside the Murphy Center. I personally know of several recruits we would not get because of this one sentence. And does our school not understand the risk of myocarditis, especially in the age frame we are recruiting? Just stupid.
Criminal
Bellhenmar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also to add, while we are doing this Sam Howell sits in Chapel Hill unvaccinated, never missed a game and was one of the best QBs in the country. Imagine the effect this would have on a recruit like him. Because like his school choice or not, I think we would all be pleased to have a player of his caliber on our team (not at the expense of Leary but you know what I'm saying I think).
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

Also to add, while we are doing this Sam Howell sits in Chapel Hill unvaccinated, never missed a game and was one of the best QBs in the country. Imagine the effect this would have on a recruit like him. Because like his school choice or not, I think we would all be pleased to have a player of his caliber on our team (not at the expense of Leary but you know what I'm saying I think).
Wow, really? How is it that our team basically had to take the injections or else they were not allowed to travel to away games?

The commie Lamestream media tells me to think that any athlete who doesn't kowtow and submit to being injected with the juice should be crucified and shunned, like Novak Djokovic.

Why isn't the Marxist Lamestream media instructing me to hate Sam Howell? Come on WRAL, get on top of this. I need you to tell me what to think. It is impossible for me to know what to believe unless you tell me. This is your one job...to tell Americans what to believe and form our entire worldview for us, so that we believe what you want us to believe.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Daviewolf83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

The thing that really pisses me off is the school we choose to support sets up a recruiting weekend and puts on the invitation if you have not been vaccinated against Covid you aren't allowed inside the Murphy Center. I personally know of several recruits we would not get because of this one sentence. And does our school not understand the risk of myocarditis, especially in the age frame we are recruiting? Just stupid.
State is not the only school with this policy. There are several ACC teams I know for certain have this same policy for recruits visiting their school. I also agree it is a stupid policy.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

Also to add, while we are doing this Sam Howell sits in Chapel Hill unvaccinated, never missed a game and was one of the best QBs in the country. Imagine the effect this would have on a recruit like him. Because like his school choice or not, I think we would all be pleased to have a player of his caliber on our team (not at the expense of Leary but you know what I'm saying I think).

Do we really think this policy for recruiting weekend, that exceeds the stringency of broader university building policy, was imposed upon Doeren's program unilaterally by the administration?

Doeren himself likely had a hand in implementing the policy but regardless it was likely not done without his acquiescence; he understands the implications of the policy and would not implement it in the first place or alter it if he felt it was hamstringing his ability to recruit.
Bellhenmar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Bellhenmar said:

Also to add, while we are doing this Sam Howell sits in Chapel Hill unvaccinated, never missed a game and was one of the best QBs in the country. Imagine the effect this would have on a recruit like him. Because like his school choice or not, I think we would all be pleased to have a player of his caliber on our team (not at the expense of Leary but you know what I'm saying I think).

Do we really think this policy for recruiting weekend, that exceeds the stringency of broader university building policy, was imposed upon Doeren's program unilaterally by the administration?

Doeren himself likely had a hand in implementing the policy but regardless it was likely not done without his acquiescence; he understands the implications of the policy and would not implement it in the first place or alter it if he felt it was hamstringing his ability to recruit.
There is not a question if it hamstrings his ability to recruit. It absolutely does. I would not send my son to a school that requires vaccination, period. And I know several other parents that say the same. But my question is more upon the lunacy that whoever made that decision obviously is clueless or else they'd see that having a vaccine or not would not change the fact that the disease can be carried inside the building. Just plain stupid.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In other news, I have a reprieve from the dreaded booster. May get overturned but by the time it does, hopefully I'll be ready to put in my retirement papers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/federal-judge-blocks-bidens-vaccine-mandate-federal-employees
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is that for any vaccinations or just COVID?
Bellhenmar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

Is that for any vaccinations or just COVID?
Just Covid. The risk of myocarditis is just too high for young men and for my daughters and son I don't feel that the risk of the disease at their age is worth the long term risk that a covid vaccine COULD cause. It's just too new for me to force that upon my children. And now that I see the narrative that the vaccinated should protect others is BS, I see no reason to do it.

Edit to add: The flu actually kills more young adults than covid, and we don't require that vaccine. It's just madness to me.
Wayland
How long do you want to ignore this user?



They can't help themselves. There is no nuance. Even if you have completed the primary series AND have had COVID...

YOU AREN'T UP TO DATE.

It isn't about outcomes... it is about narrative.
dogplasma
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What is the risk of myocarditis from vaccine versus the risk from Covid itself? What I've read is that it's higher from the virus. You wouldn't think the AHA would continue to endorse vaccination if it were not.

Unrelated note - some local Covid news: The News & Observer - Duke leads national COVID study of ivermectin
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=a4bbf072-7661-4377-96ee-8b24b69c3966
Bellhenmar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dogplasma said:

What is the risk of myocarditis from vaccine versus the risk from Covid itself? What I've read is that it's higher from the virus. You wouldn't think the AHA would continue to endorse vaccination if it were not.

Unrelated note - some local Covid news: The News & Observer - Duke leads national COVID study of ivermectin
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=a4bbf072-7661-4377-96ee-8b24b69c3966
From some estimates as high as 12,000 cases of myocarditis from vaccination. No where near that from infection. The "experts" continue to say the risk is minimal from vaccination but that's too high for me.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A young healthy person has essentially zero risk from COVID. There is much much more than simply myocarditis to be concerned with re the experimental JAB
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

Civilized said:

Bellhenmar said:

Also to add, while we are doing this Sam Howell sits in Chapel Hill unvaccinated, never missed a game and was one of the best QBs in the country. Imagine the effect this would have on a recruit like him. Because like his school choice or not, I think we would all be pleased to have a player of his caliber on our team (not at the expense of Leary but you know what I'm saying I think).

Do we really think this policy for recruiting weekend, that exceeds the stringency of broader university building policy, was imposed upon Doeren's program unilaterally by the administration?

Doeren himself likely had a hand in implementing the policy but regardless it was likely not done without his acquiescence; he understands the implications of the policy and would not implement it in the first place or alter it if he felt it was hamstringing his ability to recruit.
There is not a question if it hamstrings his ability to recruit. It absolutely does. I would not send my son to a school that requires vaccination, period. And I know several other parents that say the same. But my question is more upon the lunacy that whoever made that decision obviously is clueless or else they'd see that having a vaccine or not would not change the fact that the disease can be carried inside the building. Just plain stupid.

Doeren and his staff worked hard for months to educate the players on the benefits to themselves and the team of vaccinating, and finally got nearly all or all the team vaxxed. From the outside, his management of the team through COVID has been outstanding. Their preparation and focus the last two seasons has been top-shelf despite all the COVID distractions and complications.

If you think he's going to have a devil-may-care attitude about protocols in his building after spending the last 22 months micromanaging COVID impacts to the program and very successfully leading the program through the pandemic I don't know what to tell you.

Also, I guarantee you Doeren aint' poring over Davie and Wayland's posts for the latest breaking news on the virus mutations and vaccines. The policy to require vaccination to enter the building feels more like vestige of pre-Omicron COVID behavior but I'm not going to fault Dave and his staff for not being at the front lines of opening up. Their priority is continuing to manage COVID's impacts to the team, not to be seen as highly adaptive and Lettin' 'er RIP!!1

Finally, regarding not letting your son play for universities that required vaccination I don't think State required vaccination for the team did they? I think they encouraged vaccination given the testing protocol advantages it afforded the team but said they'd try hard to educate their kids on the benefits and drawbacks but that ultimately it was the kids' choice. Last I heard before last season they had a handful of players that hadn't had the jab, and he said they thought they'd be close to 100% by the time the season started.

Maybe I've got that wrong but I thought the player's weren't required to vaccinate (even though most all of them did do so voluntarily). This policy is just for visitors to the building, right?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bellhenmar said:

dogplasma said:

What is the risk of myocarditis from vaccine versus the risk from Covid itself? What I've read is that it's higher from the virus. You wouldn't think the AHA would continue to endorse vaccination if it were not.

Unrelated note - some local Covid news: The News & Observer - Duke leads national COVID study of ivermectin
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=a4bbf072-7661-4377-96ee-8b24b69c3966
From some estimates as high as 12,000 cases of myocarditis from vaccination. No where near that from infection. The "experts" continue to say the risk is minimal from vaccination but that's too high for me.

Risk of myocarditis from COVID is multiples higher than from the jab. 146 per 100,000 with COVID vs. 2 per 100,000 from jab according to this study.

Males under 16 are most susceptible to myocarditis (from the virus and from the poison). Also 98.6% of myocarditis cases in kids from vaccine are mild, with no reports of mechanical heart support or death from vaccine. All children who had heart weakness had complete normalization of their heart function on followup checkup.

You can lower risk by getting Pfizer instead of Moderna.

Myocarditis: COVID-19 is a much bigger risk to the heart than vaccination


Quote:

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of myocarditis after infection with COVID-19 is much higher, at 146 cases per 100,000. The risk is higher for males, older adults (ages 50+) and children under 16 years old.

Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is rare and the risk is much smaller than the risks of cardiac injury linked to COVID-19 itself.

Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population. This study is consistent with others in the United States and Israel which put the overall incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis between 0.3 and five cases per 100,000 people.



Wayland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Bellhenmar said:

dogplasma said:

What is the risk of myocarditis from vaccine versus the risk from Covid itself? What I've read is that it's higher from the virus. You wouldn't think the AHA would continue to endorse vaccination if it were not.

Unrelated note - some local Covid news: The News & Observer - Duke leads national COVID study of ivermectin
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=a4bbf072-7661-4377-96ee-8b24b69c3966
From some estimates as high as 12,000 cases of myocarditis from vaccination. No where near that from infection. The "experts" continue to say the risk is minimal from vaccination but that's too high for me.

Risk of myocarditis from COVID is multiples higher than from the jab. 146 per 100,000 with COVID vs. 2 per 100,000 from jab according to this study.

Males under 16 are most susceptible to myocarditis (from the virus and from the poison). Also 98.6% of myocarditis cases in kids from vaccine are mild, with no reports of mechanical heart support or death from vaccine. All children who had heart weakness had complete normalization of their heart function on followup checkup.

You can lower risk by getting Pfizer instead of Moderna.

Myocarditis: COVID-19 is a much bigger risk to the heart than vaccination


Quote:

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of myocarditis after infection with COVID-19 is much higher, at 146 cases per 100,000. The risk is higher for males, older adults (ages 50+) and children under 16 years old.

Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is rare and the risk is much smaller than the risks of cardiac injury linked to COVID-19 itself.

Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population. This study is consistent with others in the United States and Israel which put the overall incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis between 0.3 and five cases per 100,000 people.




Why not both since subsequent boosters don't provide great protection against infection?

My main issue now is the scope creep on boosters. And the mandates for young people to participate in education and sports requiring boosters (Or as the muppet Walensky likes to say "Up to date").

Now, the latest MMWR has come out (and it was mostly done during the Delta period) but in all the pumps on it, they compare boosted to unvaccinated... and kind of gloss over the group with the original series done.

But let's look at young people and boosters.

Now this is with Delta, it will be interesting what comes out when full Omicron.

But based on that CDC MMWR. In (early) December, when we still had a lot of Delta.

The average weekly incidence cases:
For a VACCINATED 18-49 year old was 302 per 100k.
For a BOOSTED 18-49 year old it was 191 per 100k. (745 per 100k unvax)

So at best, pre-Omicron, we are looking at a temporary 33% reduction in infections?

In Oct November for Deaths (so pre-Omicron) since they didn't have December data.
The average weekly incidence deaths:
For a VACCINATED 18-49 year old was 0 per 100k.
For a BOOSTED 18-49 year old it was 0 per 100k. (1 per 100k unvax)

With basically NO CHANGE to serious outcome

Here is the time period of the CDC MMWR:


Doesn't really change my mind a whole lot that for healthy young people, booster doses are largely unnecessary at this point. If they want to focus on seniors or at-risk, which is where I thought boosters should always have been targeted, seems reasonable.

People can do what they want and what they deem best with their doctors advice. But universities mandating boosters for healthy college students looks like a seriously flawed policy based on this data.

But public health is going to boost broad swaths of the population with a 2 year old formula for a virus that is no longer circulating without thoughts or concerns as to the possible side-effects (myocarditis, AOS, etc) because why?

Public health and policymakers need to look like they are doing something? Because we already paid for all the doses?

Why are we medicating healthy young people with additional boosters that provide basically no relative benefit (the protection from serious harm is covered with the original series)?

Again, work it out with your doctor and make the right decision for you. But the fact that there are already so many private universities mandating these (useless for young people) boosters and it is starting to creep into the under 18s to participate in school and sports is disgusting.

Public health grifters (including political muppets like Walensky and culpable narcissists like Fauci) are so simply minded it is baffling.

Why no nuance?? Why can't we boost an 80 year old woman and leave an 18 year old boy who is already vaccinated and HAD COVID alone?

Universal boosting of this vaccine is a public health crime.... and I am baffled that we are allowing big pharma and fear to drive this forward.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Bellhenmar said:

dogplasma said:

What is the risk of myocarditis from vaccine versus the risk from Covid itself? What I've read is that it's higher from the virus. You wouldn't think the AHA would continue to endorse vaccination if it were not.

Unrelated note - some local Covid news: The News & Observer - Duke leads national COVID study of ivermectin
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=a4bbf072-7661-4377-96ee-8b24b69c3966
From some estimates as high as 12,000 cases of myocarditis from vaccination. No where near that from infection. The "experts" continue to say the risk is minimal from vaccination but that's too high for me.

Risk of myocarditis from COVID is multiples higher than from the jab. 146 per 100,000 with COVID vs. 2 per 100,000 from jab according to this study.

Males under 16 are most susceptible to myocarditis (from the virus and from the poison). Also 98.6% of myocarditis cases in kids from vaccine are mild, with no reports of mechanical heart support or death from vaccine. All children who had heart weakness had complete normalization of their heart function on followup checkup.

You can lower risk by getting Pfizer instead of Moderna.

Myocarditis: COVID-19 is a much bigger risk to the heart than vaccination


Quote:

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of myocarditis after infection with COVID-19 is much higher, at 146 cases per 100,000. The risk is higher for males, older adults (ages 50+) and children under 16 years old.

Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is rare and the risk is much smaller than the risks of cardiac injury linked to COVID-19 itself.

Based on a study out of Israel, the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated, which is within the range usually seen in the general population. This study is consistent with others in the United States and Israel which put the overall incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis between 0.3 and five cases per 100,000 people.






Or you could not vaccinate children that are at zero risk from covid and not have to worry about myocarditis at all. But that goes against the religion. I know.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:


Or you could not vaccinate children that are at zero risk from covid and not have to worry about myocarditis at all. But that goes against the religion. I know.

"Zero risk," huh?

Families of the 596 kids of vaccine-eligible age in the US that have died from COVID would very likely disagree with that risk assessment. So would the parents of the thousands of other kids with long-term COVID effects.

How man kids have died from vaccine-induced myocarditis, or vaccine-induced anything for that matter, again?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:


Or you could not vaccinate children that are at zero risk from covid and not have to worry about myocarditis at all. But that goes against the religion. I know.

"Zero risk," huh?

Families of the 596 kids of vaccine-eligible age in the US that have died from COVID would very likely disagree with that risk assessment. So would the parents of the thousands of other kids with long-term COVID effects.

How man kids have died from vaccine-induced myocarditis, or vaccine-induced anything for that matter, again?


Yes the cult believes that 596 "vaccine eligible" children died "from covid". Which is utter nonsense. But please continue your missionary quack work.

0.0008164383562% is closer to zero than one. But you be afraid, civ. Religion.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wayland said:

Why not both since subsequent boosters don't provide great protection against infection?

My main issue now is the scope creep on boosters. And the mandates for young people to participate in education and sports requiring boosters (Or as the muppet Walensky likes to say "Up to date").

Now, the latest MMWR has come out (and it was mostly done during the Delta period) but in all the pumps on it, they compare boosted to unvaccinated... and kind of gloss over the group with the original series done.

But let's look at young people and boosters.

Now this is with Delta, it will be interesting what comes out when full Omicron.

But based on that CDC MMWR. In (early) December, when we still had a lot of Delta.

The average weekly incidence cases:
For a VACCINATED 18-49 year old was 302 per 100k.
For a BOOSTED 18-49 year old it was 191 per 100k. (745 per 100k unvax)

So at best, pre-Omicron, we are looking at a temporary 33% reduction in infections?

In Oct November for Deaths (so pre-Omicron) since they didn't have December data.
The average weekly incidence deaths:
For a VACCINATED 18-49 year old was 0 per 100k.
For a BOOSTED 18-49 year old it was 0 per 100k. (1 per 100k unvax)

With basically NO CHANGE to serious outcome

Here is the time period of the CDC MMWR:

Doesn't really change my mind a whole lot that for healthy young people, booster doses are largely unnecessary at this point. If they want to focus on seniors or at-risk, which is where I thought boosters should always have been targeted, seems reasonable.

People can do what they want and what they deem best with their doctors advice. But universities mandating boosters for healthy college students looks like a seriously flawed policy based on this data.

But public health is going to boost broad swaths of the population with a 2 year old formula for a virus that is no longer circulating without thoughts or concerns as to the possible side-effects (myocarditis, AOS, etc) because why?

Public health and policymakers need to look like they are doing something? Because we already paid for all the doses?

Why are we medicating healthy young people with additional boosters that provide basically no relative benefit (the protection from serious harm is covered with the original series)?

Again, work it out with your doctor and make the right decision for you. But the fact that there are already so many private universities mandating these (useless for young people) boosters and it is starting to creep into the under 18s to participate in school and sports is disgusting.

Public health grifters (including political muppets like Walensky and culpable narcissists like Fauci) are so simply minded it is baffling.

Why no nuance?? Why can't we boost an 80 year old woman and leave an 18 year old boy who is already vaccinated and HAD COVID alone?

Universal boosting of this vaccine is a public health crime.... and I am baffled that we are allowing big pharma and fear to drive this forward.

Yeah agreed. I'm getting increasingly frustrated with public health being such a blunt object about COVID protocols. I know you've been pissed about it for a long time, and I feel you, but I had more patience for it at the onset and as the situation evolved rapidly. But we've now got plenty of data to be more surgical and nuanced. Public health is losing me with their tone-deafness and blinders to rather obvious data and trends.

[ETA: honestly the final straw for me with my patience was this week when the recommendation came down that schools should be cancelling football and band. What? Based on what? It's outside, very low risk, that ship already sailed months ago, and beside that don't **** with our football, man. That **** was just preposterous.]

I posted on this this afternoon because I'm currently (mildly) arguing with my wife about our 15 year old getting boosted and was looking for myocarditis data. She wants him to boost and he and I are pushing back.

Median age of myocarditis from COVID or vaccine is 15. It's very, very rare, and is virtually always mild (and has never caused death) so the risks are low. So I'm pretty satisfied the risks remain extraordinarily limited but so do the benefits it seems like.

Last summer we told our guy to make the call about getting jabbed and he wanted to do it. Aside from obviously hedging against serious outcomes, at that time the vax was still really effective against even simple infection. But that's changed with Omicron; it's much less serious but the vaccines are much less protective against infection. He doesn't really want to get boosted and I don't see the need either. He's already hedged against serious illness and death with the first series and the booster won't consequentially reduce his chances of catching a mild, annoying case. Unlike the first series, the risk/benefit of boosting a teenager just isn't nearly as compelling.
dogplasma
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

A young healthy person has essentially zero risk from COVID. There is much much more than simply myocarditis to be concerned with re the experimental JAB
Risk of death, true. Risk of symptoms and complications, not true.

I don't know if you consider the AHA as experts or "experts" on heart health, but they endorse vaccination benefits as outweighing the small risks of myocarditis. For example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135. But it is a risk, so I guess everyone has to weigh that for themselves. There's risk both ways.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your link doesn't work.
Daviewolf83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I saw a report today that California is considering allowing children 12+ to get vaccinated "without the consent of their parents." This can only mean one thing - California is lead by evil people and these people should not be in positions of leadership.

With regards to boosters for kids, they really should NOT be mandated. The decision to boost should be a decision of the parents - consulting their pediatrician if they have questions. Personally, I do question boosting kids with a vaccine that will provide marginal benefit to them. Of course, I am a person who does not believe in taking drugs that only provide marginal benefit.

As to myocarditis risk and vaccination, it is a legitimate consideration - in particular, for males 30 and under. For a drug that provides marginal benefit and does carry some risk (risk is not zero), it should definitely weigh in the decision. Again, boosters should not be mandated for healthy people. They should be available and people should be allowed to make their own decision. The focus right now should be boosting older people and people with compromised medical conditions. Healthy people can boost if they want to, but it definitely should not be mandated. For some reason, we have people in leadership that have to appear to be doing something, even if it is of marginal benefit (like providing free masks and test kits).

For kids receiving their first doses of a vaccine, my simple recommendation would be to space the doses out to eight weeks apart, instead of three to four weeks. There is some good data that spacing out doses will provide a couple of benefits. It appears to induce a stronger immune response when doses are spaced out. Secondly, there are reports that the myocarditis risk is lower when doses are spaced further apart.

When does the booster push end. We have already seen the reports out of Israel that a fourth booster offers no additional protection for infection and hospitalization. At some point, you have to accept that the immune system is more than antibodies and after is has been exposed to the novel virus, it is able to mount long lasting protection against severe illness in healthy people.

With regards to people who have been vaccinated and became infected, they have a booster and should not need a vaccine booster. They have received nature's booster. As the CDC study shows - natural infection is more effective in reducing severe illness and hospitalization than the vaccines. Unfortunately, the people making health policy in the US are having trouble pivoting and following the latest research and data. Messaging and health policy this whole time has been a complete cluster.
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Daviewolf83 said:

I saw a report today that California is considering allowing children 12+ to get vaccinated "without the consent of their parents." This can only mean one thing - California is lead by evil people and these people should not be in positions of leadership.

Yep. They're communists....but they like to refer to themselves as "progressives", "leftists", or "liberals". One of their most fundamental and cherished beliefs is their fanatical defense of the right to murder unborn children. What could be more evil than that? They hate God, and some of their other most cherished beliefs include promoting faux "science" that claims we evolved from monkies, and relentlessly pushing acceptance of Sodomy and transgender insanity.

Nice post. I would just like to add that these injections should not be mandated for ANYONE. "My body. My choice".
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Salt Lake County mask mandate overturned today by the state. The state listened to the people and revoked the mandate!
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wayland said:


Universal boosting of this vaccine is a public health crime.... and I am baffled that we are allowing big pharma and fear to drive this forward.
Anyone here that has injected a 5, 8, 10 year old (like the new ads, that big pharma and the Biden government are now flooding the airwaves with) - especially when their intention was far more for their own personal convenience instead of what was in the potential best interest of their child deserved to be described as nothing but political zealots at this point.

And yeah, the one here that jumped in as fast as he / she could, as soon as it was made available knows who i'm talking about. His / Her motivations were never camouflaged either. It was ALL about making life easier for the parent.

Pathetic.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aaron Rodgers dropping logic on the folks that support suppression.

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Attorney General Document - David Martin | The Wobble Effect
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

GuerrillaPack said:

Civilized said:



"Many" doctors have had their licenses revoked?

Where are they? Who are these alleged doctors and what specifically got them in trouble with their licensing/ethics board?
Oh, eeexcuse me...I'm sure you're right. I'm just probably promoting yet another "crazy conspiracy theory"....yada yada yada

LA Times: "Column: A warning to doctors spreading COVID misinformation could cost you your license"

You said many doctors had actually lost their license, which is demonstrably false.

What you've just linked to does is not an indication of "many" or even "any" doctors losing their license; it's basically a reminder by the Medical Board Federation that spreading vaccine disinformation could result in disciplinary action.

In other words, it's a complete non-story. I certainly hope that maliciously spreading disinformation could result in penalty.

Remember that doctor that was the nexus of the anti-vax movement back in the mid-90's that claimed the MMR vaccine caused autism in kids? We still live with the loud echoes of that quackery today. THAT's why you can't have doctors out there pumping misinformation that can do great harm without any real evidence to back up their claims.
Hey Civ...here's more on that "non-story" of doctors being threatened with and losing their licenses for speaking out against the Establishment "official" narrative on covid.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article257335847.html

Quote:

Doctor loses license, must have psych evaluation for COVID falsehoods, board says

BY JULIA MARNIN

JANUARY 14, 2022 5:49 PM

A doctor with decades of experience can't practice medicine after her license was temporarily suspended over complaints that she shared coronavirus misinformation, according to a Maine licensing board.

The board has ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation, it said.

Dr. Meryl J. Nass, who got a license to practice medicine in Maine in 1997, had her license "immediately" suspended for 30 days after a board investigation and review of complaints against her on Jan. 12, according to a suspension order from the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine.

[...]

The complaints against Nass include how the board was told she engaged in "public dissemination of 'misinformation'" about COVID-19 and vaccinations "via a video interview and on her website," the board said about the October 26, 2021 complaint. It lists several comments Nass made that were subject to the board's investigation.

Roughly 10 days later, the board got another complaint about Nass "spreading COVID and COVID vaccination misinformation on Twitter," it said.


"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
First Page Last Page
Page 444 of 487
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.