Coronavirus

[cardinalkarp]

Vaccine side effects show up by now.

For a standard vaccine, you’re right….they likely would, but as we all know this is the first mRNA vaccine so when side effects might show up is unknown.

We would know if there were horrible side effects.

You’re right, and there have been horrible side effects ranging from serious blood clotting issues and awful neurological disorders.

We know about the risks that exist, and doctors advise their patients on whether to get the vaccine based on their patients' individual health records.

As far as I’ve seen they are just saying EVERYONE needs to get vaccinated. Hell, starting on 9/13 NYC is basically requiring vaccines to take part in society and from what I’ve read there are no medical exemptions.

I have two kids under 11. Trust me, I worry about unknown risks of the vaccine for them. But I also read, understand, and trust medical science. I also know that worrying about theoretical, abstract risks from the vaccine that likely will never occur makes little sense when there are actual, potentially catastrophic risks of my kids getting COVID right now. I will not risk the latter in the off chance of the former occurring.

And I completely understand that, and for those wanting to get their children vaccinated hopefully this FDA approval will allow them to do just that.

[obucard]

In the end, it comes down to fear; what scares you more, the virus or the vaccine?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

In the end, it comes down to fear; what scares you more, the virus or the vaccine?

I think this is a good point. Prior to the delta variant, I think there was reason to believe, definitely hope, that the virus was gone within a year or two. In the spring, when the vaccine became widely available, new cases were subsiding rapidly, it looked like there was great demand for the vaccine (still hopeful that it would prevent infections/transmission), and there was of course a certain portion if not a large portion of the citizenry that had some form of immunity from natural infection.

Now, though, things have changed. Given the greatly increased transmissibility of the delta variant and the ability, even if diminished, remains for vaccinated to get infected, even if not particularly sick. And, daily cases are on the rise across the country, hitting peaks in many of the southern states and likely will peak again in the winter. The virus likely sticks around for another couple years, and, again, is much more contagious. Outside social distancing, we aren't really sure how effective previous mitigation strategies will be, including masks.

On top of that, delta is more virulent. Does that mean its more dangerous? Well, tbd. But, early indications suggest it is. And, that makes sense. Covid largel kills via 1) pneumonia, 2) cytokine storm and 3) blood clots. IIRC. An increased viral load is certainly going to make 2 and 3 worse/more likely and 1 probably more likely.

All that to say back in the spring, it was more conceivable someone could escape infection even without the vaccine given proper mitigation efforts. The odds of that have greatly reduced. Also, the risk of a severe outcome from an infection have likely increased. In the meantime, the odds of an adverse reaction to the vaccine have remained the same, and an additional 5-6 months of data has been collected and refined the odds of those adverse reactions. I'm not talking about the CDC, per se. Many other nations have weighed in as well.

Lastly, I think I saw something over the weekend that suggested the best immunity to covid comes from a combination of vaccination with natural infection (preferably in that order for the benefit of the patient, but not necessarily relevant to the level of immunity).

[cardinalkarp]

Here’s a blog from the editor of the BMJ and bringing into question the full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/do ... 9-vaccine/

[InvincibleCakeEater]

Here’s a blog from the editor of the BMJ and bringing into question the full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/do ... 9-vaccine/

Interesting competing interests in the footnotes there.

[cardinalkarp]

Here’s a blog from the editor of the BMJ and bringing into question the full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/do ... 9-vaccine/

Interesting competing interests in the footnotes there.

I guess let me know which ones you think are concerning?

And people have every right to believe whatever information they want to believe, but just don’t mandate this [expletive] on me.

[GeddyWrox]

Here’s a blog from the editor of the BMJ and bringing into question the full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/do ... 9-vaccine/

Interesting competing interests in the footnotes there.

I guess let me know which ones you think are concerning?

And people have every right to believe whatever information they want to believe, but just don’t mandate this [expletive] on me.

It seems the Supreme Court had something to say about this in 19 aught 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Background
Massachusetts was one of only 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws.[1] Massachusetts law empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community.[2] Adults who refused were subject to a $5 monetary fine.[2] In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants.[2]

Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden.[3] Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, Jacobson's childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a "lifelong horror of the practice".[3] Jacobson refused vaccination saying that "he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations" as children and that Jacobson himself "had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination".[2] Jacobson believed that his family may have some sort of hereditary condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous.[3] Because of his refusal to get vaccinated, Jacobson was prosecuted and fined $5 (about $150 in 2020 dollars).[4][5] Over the next three years until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson argued that subjecting him to a fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing vaccination was an invasion of his liberty, the law was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive", and that one should not be subjected to the law if he or she objects to vaccination, no matter the reason.[2]

Decision

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public".[2] In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".[2] The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed that the smallpox vaccine would not stop the spread of the disease and, in fact, may cause other diseases of the body.[2] However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were "more formidable by their number than by their inherent value" and "[w]hat everybody knows, ... [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority."[2] Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the "two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease".[2] No one could "confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety".[2]

[cardinalkarp]

Here’s a blog from the editor of the BMJ and bringing into question the full FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/do ... 9-vaccine/

Interesting competing interests in the footnotes there.

I guess let me know which ones you think are concerning?

And people have every right to believe whatever information they want to believe, but just don’t mandate this [expletive] on me.

It seems the Supreme Court had something to say about this in 19 aught 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Background
Massachusetts was one of only 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws.[1] Massachusetts law empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community.[2] Adults who refused were subject to a $5 monetary fine.[2] In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants.[2]

Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden.[3] Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, Jacobson's childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a "lifelong horror of the practice".[3] Jacobson refused vaccination saying that "he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations" as children and that Jacobson himself "had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination".[2] Jacobson believed that his family may have some sort of hereditary condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous.[3] Because of his refusal to get vaccinated, Jacobson was prosecuted and fined $5 (about $150 in 2020 dollars).[4][5] Over the next three years until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson argued that subjecting him to a fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing vaccination was an invasion of his liberty, the law was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive", and that one should not be subjected to the law if he or she objects to vaccination, no matter the reason.[2]

Decision

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public".[2] In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".[2] The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed that the smallpox vaccine would not stop the spread of the disease and, in fact, may cause other diseases of the body.[2] However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were "more formidable by their number than by their inherent value" and "[w]hat everybody knows, ... [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority."[2] Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the "two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease".[2] No one could "confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety".[2]

I’m readily aware of that case, and think it was a gross injustice that they would require someone to get a vaccine that could knowingly injure a person.

Although I’m not really sure of how this is relevant in what I posted as the editor of the BMJ was arguing that he feels the FDA approval was preemptive.

They should have at least followed their OWN f’ing protocol when it comes to the approval of a drug.

[mikechamp]

No!!! Not high school footbawwwlll!!!!

Texas town closed due to COVID: In Iraan, nearly half its people hit by COVID-19

Iraan, a small oilfield town of 1,200 people in west Texas, has been struck so hard by the coronavirus pandemic that the entire town has essentially shut down, including the school district and local businesses.

Iraan-Sheffield Independent School District Superintendent Tracy Canter said in a public statement that the school district had to shut down after only five days of classes because about one quarter of the staff and 16% of the students were either infected with or exposed to the coronavirus.

With school postponed – with no virtual classes – until Aug. 30, city council buildings are closed, and high school football, the town's lynchpin, is on hold.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/entire-texas ... 00273.html

[GeddyWrox]

It was relevant because the SCOTUS decided it is constitutional, when in the best interest of a healthy society, to mandate vaccines. You said "don't mandate this expletive on me". Relevant.

We've had this discussion before. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few/individual. Or in other terms, your individual liberties do not permit you to endanger those around you with hubris and callousness. I know YOU mask. That's great. Kudos. But it IS constitutional to mandate vaccines.

Also, if you read the wiki post, at the end, they say this decision has been upheld multiple times since. And it also says that the SCOTUS also stated that in the case of provable harm in certain circumstances, exceptions could be made.