The Other Covid Thread

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

For a demographic in which the danger of COVID is virtually non-existent, why would they risk a vaccine who's dangers are still being revealed?

Even assuming the above is accurate (and as Pogi pointed out any danger will have a very low rare event risk, the more common allergic reactions to the vaccine can’t happen when there is no vaccine present and it breaks down and leaves the body quite quickly), because transmission of infection is slowed and lessened when they are vaccinated against it and this will lead to more surviving among those who have it serious, because they are less likely to be infected in the first place and with fewer cases quality of care goes up in the hospitals which mean more survive there as well. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, John Madden said:

Have you considered asking about the length and color of the patient's toenails and fingernails? This could help you make a thorough internet diagnosis and discredit the person that was there in real life. Could be super helpful. Think about it. Just, think about it. 

My father died from massive organ failure within a very short time from becoming ill (about six years ago) and it sounded similar in the first description.  I was simply wondering if there was something actually similar that happened in this case. With Danzo’s additional info it is obvious not the same type of illness.  It was as much to relate to the experience of his family as it was curiosity about what happened medically. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Calm

[BRMC]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know how you think the information that you have provided is sufficient to calculate risk vs benefit.   

No one is denying that risk of death from Covid is low in certain populations.  That fact doesn't tell me if the risk of is higher or lower from the vaccine or disease. 

 

The risk from the vaccine is unknown.   The fact that the risk from COVID is virtually non-existent for some demographics is all that matters.   It negates the unknown risk from the vaccine.

Quote

Some people have never received there sense of smell and taste back.  Some people are disabled (including my brother in law) from long Covid.  He has practically been in bed for the last 6 months.  Crippling fatigue.  

These are the margin cases, and also varies by demographic.  Again, the known risk from COVID is virtually non-existent for some demographics.  It negates the unknown risk from the vaccine.   Arguing from the margins just doesn't fit the facts.

Quote

Then, if you could please supply me with death and hospitalization rates from Covid vaccine in your area under 50.  That is the only way we can accurately and fairly compare risk vs benefit.  If deaths and hospitalization from vaccination under 50 is less then from Covid, then the risk is greater not to get the vaccine.  

If you want to break it up even further into age groups.  That would be great too.  

Pick any area.   It doesn't have to be mine.

Quote

Of course these risk vs benefit assessments and calculation have already been done, but if you think they are wrong...please provide the evidence. 

The vaccine is still considered "safe and effective" compared to Covid.   Last resort doesn't mean not 'safe or effective'.  

If we learn something new next month, the risk will be even lower.  Many of the extremely rare adverse events from vaccination are not captured with millions of vaccines, but require 100's of millions of doses administered before these events are able to be captured on the radar.  The longer we go and the more data we collect, the more rare the events will be that are discovered.  There will be no freaky revelation that vaccines are more dangerous than Covid in any age group.  That can't happen given the data we already have. 

15% of those were fatal.  That is 1.5 deaths/million doses administered to women ages 30 to 49.  

If we calculate risk of death from Covid in that population, and compare it to the extremely rare death vaccination, which do you think will be higher?  

If we calculate risk from clotting from Covid in all age groups, which do you think will be higher?

I did provide the evidence.  Then you just repeated the same talking points as though that evidence didn't exist.

[BRMC]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even assuming the above is accurate (and as Pogi pointed out any danger will have a very low rare event risk, the more common allergic reactions to the vaccine can’t happen when there is no vaccine present and it breaks down and leaves the body quite quickly), because transmission of infection is slowed and lessened when they are vaccinated against it and this will lead to more surviving among those who have it serious, because they are less likely to be infected in the first place and with fewer cases quality of care goes up in the hospitals which mean more survive there as well. 

Sure.  That's why it's a personal choice.   There is zero logical reason for some people to get the vaccine.   Zero.  

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, BRMC said:

There is zero logical reason for some people to get the vaccine.   Zero.  

Oddly, none of the overfull hospitals are sending that message. I do get that those who are totally down with giving Covid a safe haven to thrive have zero reason to risk that.

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  That's why it's a personal choice.  

Fortunately we have a prophet to help us make that personal choice.

"Do all you can to bring COVID numbers down in your area"

-- Russel M Nelson

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Oddly, none of the overfull hospitals are sending that message. I do get that those who are totally down with giving Covid a safe haven to thrive have zero reason to risk that.

Red Herring

[BRMC]

6 minutes ago, Chum said:

Fortunately we have a prophet to help us make that personal choice.

"Do all you can to bring COVID numbers down in your area"

-- Russel M Nelson

Yes, we sure do.

"Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. If members have concerns, they should counsel with competent medical professionals and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost."

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, BRMC said:

The risk from the vaccine is unknown.

Wrong.

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong.

That response is factually incorrect.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Red Herring

“There is no reason for me to take this vaccine.”

”Hospitals everywhere are filling up with the sick and dying who mostly made the choice you are.”

”Irrelevant!”

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, BRMC said:

There is zero logical reason for some people to get the vaccine.   Zero.  

If they don’t care or understand about how their behaviour affects others, there are lots of behaviours that are acceptable by that guideline that we don’t generally actually think are acceptable and even have laws against such to prevent this type of attitude from crippling our communities by imposing artificial (man made) risks.  Justifying behaviour by “it doesn’t hurt me, so why should I be concerned” is hardly a healthy way of approaching life, including spiritually. We usually call such behaviour self-centered and selfish.

If one is well off and has substantial savings, there is low risk that one will ever need to use fast offerings and therefore no reason to contribute. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Calm

[BRMC]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“There is no reason for me to take this vaccine.”

”Hospitals everywhere are filling up with the sick and dying who mostly made the choice you are.”

”Irrelevant!”

It is.  It's an emotional argument.  You also miss quoted me.   I didn't say "me".  I said there is zero logical reason for some people to get the vaccine.  Hospitals filling up doesn't change that fact for those people.  Nationally, there have been 655 COVID deaths under age 18.

Edited January 2, 2022 by BRMC

[BRMC]

Just now, Calm said:

If they don’t care or understand about how their behaviour affects others, there are lots of behaviours that are acceptable that we don’t generally actually think are acceptable and even have laws against.  Justifying behaviour by “it doesn’t hurt me, so why should I be concerned” is hardly a healthy way of approaching life, including spiritually. 

That's an emotional argument, and assumes someones behavior will hurt someone else.   That is a false assumption.

[sunstoned]

40 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  That's why it's a personal choice.   There is zero logical reason for some people to get the vaccine.   Zero.  

While there are always outliers, such as a advanced medical situation that would prevent a vaccination, but for the vast majority of people this does not apply.  To go unvaccinated for political reasons is just selfish and reckless.  It's like saying I can drink and drive, because its my body.  No, you live in a society, and a society has a right to protect itself.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, BRMC said:

That's an emotional argument, and assumes someones behavior will hurt someone else.   That is a false assumption.

No, it isn’t false that it will hurt someone else if one takes everyone into account who is making that choice. 
 

Arguments for fast offerings and tithing and charity and getting married for love are emotional arguments. Does that mean they have no value?

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

While there are always outliers, such as a advanced medical situation that would prevent a vaccination, but for the vast majority of people this does not apply.  To go unvaccinated for political reasons is just selfish and reckless.  It's like saying I can drink and drive, because its my body.  No, you live in a society, and a society has a right to protect itself.

Who said anything about politics?    Sure, society can protect itself.  There is a line, however.   That line moves depending on infringement of individual liberty severity of the threat.  Obviously my line and your line are in different places.    Fortunately, we also have different ideas of what is selfish and reckless.  I think it's selfless and reckless to force someone to get a vaccine with known issues when COVID isn't a threat to them.   We just disagree.   I'd never tell you that you must be unvaccinated.  Respect the decisions of others, too.

[BRMC]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, it isn’t false that it will hurt someone else if one takes everyone into account who is making that choice. 
 

Yes, it is false.  It's an emotional argument based on a false statement.

[sunstoned]

3 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Who said anything about politics?    Sure, society can protect itself.  There is a line, however.   That line moves depending on infringement of individual liberty severity of the threat.  Obviously my line and your line are in different places.    Fortunately, we also have different ideas of what is selfish and reckless.  I think it's selfless and reckless to force someone to get a vaccine with known issues when COVID isn't a threat to them.   We just disagree.   I'd never tell you that you must be unvaccinated.  Respect the decisions of others, too.

Covid is still very much a threat and we are not done with this pandemic largely because of selfish unvaccinated people who define logic, reason, science, the law, and their prophet.

[BRMC]

Just now, sunstoned said:

Covid is still very much a threat and we are not done with this pandemic largely because of selfish unvaccinated people who define logic, reason, science, the law, and their prophet.

Quote

Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. If members have concerns, they should counsel with competent medical professionals and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That vaccine is ironically the traditional vaccine. I admit I am amused when I see people scream about how unsafe the new mRNA vaccines are and point to this as proof. The danger was minimal with that vaccine and it was pulled due to some trends and an abundance of caution.

The mRNA vaccines are much safer as everything in the vaccine is flushed out of your system within a few days so the possibility of medium or long term adverse events is virtually nil.

Statistically the odds of the vaccine harming you are several magnitudes lower than the odds of Covid harming you. There, logical reason. Also there is a “no take-backsies” clause so if someone ends up dying on a ventilator desperately exhausted and terrified while trying to breathe you can’t change your mind and get vaccinated. If the risks of dying were the same from the vaccine and Covid (they are not) I would go with the less painful death.

You are also focusing solely on survival. If you live you win. Read up on long Covid if you want the impact it can have on someone whose risks are low even if they get it and recover. That doesn’t happen with vaccines. Just be aware if you say something about vaccines causing autism you will make baby Jesus cry.

I have no more reactions but I give you two thumbs way up for this response!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

The risk from the vaccine is unknown.  

I will concur that there is the hypothetical possibility that there may be some potentially extremely rare or extremely late onset events (never ever seen before with any vaccine) that may be "unknown".  But the same is true with Covid disease itself.  So how do you calculate the risk vs benefit there?  Why do you assume that people are safer against the unknown long-term or late onset consequences of the disease?  The disease is only 1 year older than the vaccine, and some people have never recovered from the disease, and may never recover.  The same can't be said for the vaccine.  Based on the "knowns", the vaccine is safer.  Period.  Based on the unknowns, it seems more evident that the disease poses more potential risk of long-term sequale.  

It is not impossible to compare deaths from Covid in a particular age group to deaths from vaccine.  Same for hospitalizations.  I don't understand why you think this data is not available.  We can say with absolute certainty that in total, and per capita, more people in each age group die from Covid then from the vaccine.  The same is absolutely true for hospitalization.  That is a known and undeniable fact.  If you want to gamble with unknowns, you are taking unreasonable and unnecessary risks because there are unknowns for both the disease and vaccine.  

If the "unknown" adverse events are so rare that they are not yet identifiable after over 8 billion doses administered worldwide, I think it is beyond safe to say that statistically speaking, it is not a risk greater than the risk that is known and posed by Covid.    

Another fact - If you are only talking about rare and long-term risks, we equally don't know those risks from Covid.  It has only been around 2 years.  Many people have never recovered, and may never recover.  We simply don't know.  We have no idea if this virus will act like varicella virus and remain dormant and reinfect us later with an even more nasty infection.   That kind of crap doesn't happen with vaccines.  It is known to happen with viruses. 

What would it take for us to know the risks, in your mind?  How much data do we need before we can garner a reasonable statistical analysis of risk?

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by pogi

[sunstoned]

21 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Yes, it is false.  It's an emotional argument based on a false statement.

This is a selfish statement.  Unvaccinated people pose a risk to others.  That is fact.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

don't understand why you think this data is not available.

Because it works better for his argument perhaps?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This is a selfish statement.  Unvaccinated people pose a risk to others.  That is fact.

That is an emotional argument because it is emotion to care about others…

As if emotion is a bad thing.

Everything has value to us based on our emotions. Generally people are happier when healthy, health is good is therefore an emotional argument. Not getting a vaccination because one doesn’t want to take the risk is as much an emotional argument as any that pushes vaccination. 
 

Some random guy trying to act like he is Mr. Spock on the internet isn’t that impressive at this point. Mr. Spock would likely be offended by the blatant disregard of many scientific findings or the rejection of the argument for the greater good.