Covid vaccine - opinions?

[kskate2]

There are a million different anecdotes about covid and what it was like. Different people have different experiences. We tend to pick out stuff that re-affirms what we already believe (aka "confirmation bias") so if you're fearful of covid and see someone saying how bad it is, it will click for you; and vice versa. But for every picture like that, I see plenty that say the opposite. I also don't see a clear pattern with vaxxed people getting less sick, or covid less frequently, than the unvaxxed, and the data varies, depending upon where you look and who you trust.

Most people have had covid. Not sure the exactly percentages, but it is high. I had it and it was a mild flu for a few days. The worst of it was about 12 hours of extreme fatigue, then just some tiredness and a very mild scratchy throat. I've had worse colds. Other people have different experiences.

Well 3 years in and I haven't had it and don't plan on getting it. And I'm not living life as a hermit. I hear people say that frequently, oh it's just like a cold or the flu. Well truth be told I'm not interested in "just like" anything. The reality is it would be an inconvenience no matter how mild it may be.

 

[El Dude]

Well 3 years in and I haven't had it and don't plan on getting it. And I'm not living life as a hermit. I hear people say that frequently, oh it's just like a cold or the flu. Well truth be told I'm not interested in "just like" anything. The reality is it would be an inconvenience no matter how mild it may be.

You mean you haven't had it, as far as you know. You may have had it and been asymptomatic or thought you had a cold.

 

[kskate2]

You mean you haven't had it, as far as you know. You may have had it and been asymptomatic or thought you had a cold.

As a household we haven't had it. I haven't been sick, nor missed any days of work. I've been tested frequently and I still wear a mask in public. .

 

[tented]

You mean you haven't had it, as far as you know. You may have had it and been asymptomatic or thought you had a cold.

I’ve personally only known one person — my sister, no less — who has been surrounded by others with it, yet didn’t get it herself. Not even a carrier. She tested negative, yet was on a trip, in close proximity, with 7-8 others who got it. Everyone else I’ve known who‘s had it had some symptoms which went beyond a cold. And these days, who would get a cold and not wonder whether or not it’s covid?

 

[El Dude]

I’ve personally only known one person — my sister, no less — who has been surrounded by others with it, yet didn’t get it herself. Not even a carrier. She tested negative, yet was on a trip, in close proximity, with 7-8 others who got it. Everyone else I’ve known who‘s had it had some symptoms which went beyond a cold. And these days, who would get a cold and not wonder whether or not it’s covid?

Yeah, I know - no cold can just be a cold, and all signs of allergies are suspect to paranoia.

The tests are a bit dubious, though, and I wouldn't say that if you've never exhibited symptoms and/or you've only ever tested negative, that you haven't had covid.

I heard one estimate that something like 90-95% of people either have had or will have it. And of course, many are getting it multiple times. We have to accept that it is here to stay - just like the cold and flu.

 

[El Dude]

Well, the cat is out of the bag. What a fiasco.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I know - no cold can just be a cold, and all signs of allergies are suspect to paranoia.

You use the word "paranoia," others might use the word "caution," and get tested.

The tests are a bit dubious, though, and I wouldn't say that if you've never exhibited symptoms and/or you've only ever tested negative, that you haven't had covid.

So, the vaccinations are dubious, and the tests are dubious, according to you, right? At a certain point, I guess we all decide to believe what we will, but it's convenient to the doubters argument to doubt the efficacy of the science of everything. There are several different tests, and lab tests are better, because they are administered by professionals. Home testing can be more easily done wrong or contaminated. If there are symptoms, there should always be more than one home test, particularly if they come back negative. Also, testing too early is a thing. But one of my brother's is a bio-chemist in a Harvard medical lab, and he says the home tests are good. (With an obvious "yes" on the lab ones.)

Yes, my (other) brother had it once, completely asymptomatic...he tested because we were having a family get-together. 2 tests, both positive, so we called it off. 5 days later, still positive, still no symptoms. He was vaccinated. But he quarantined, to protect others. The full 10 days, because of the positive tests. He wouldn't have known if he hadn't tested for a specific reason. Which is why we vaccinate and mask.

I heard one estimate that something like 90-95% of people either have had or will have it. And of course, many are getting it multiple times. We have to accept that it is here to stay - just like the cold and flu.

I also believe it's here to stay, like cold and seasonal flu. But, while there is no cure for the common cold, there IS a vaccination against seasonal flu, which does a great deal to protect the very young, the very old and the immune-compromised. Likewise, the Covid vaccine, IMO, helps protect those who are more susceptible to having a bad and harmful case of it.

I'm with @kskate2, in that I haven't had it, and I don't want to. You say we may not know we've had it. Like her, I get tested a lot for work. Also, as I have mentioned, I participated in a vaccine trial. I have been tested for antibodies, meaning that I had never had it early on, and the year that I was involved with the trial, they took my blood every 6 weeks, to check on my antibodies from the experimental vaccine, and they would have been required to tell me if I had Covid, or had had it at any point. That finished last March. During that time, I did actually get one cold. (Some selfish CU next Tuesday sitting behind me on a long bus ride, coughing and sneezing last Thanksgiving. Two negative home tests, and two lab tests from the trial, because they were so obsessed with my symptoms, and no covid.) Since late March, many tests for work and family gatherings, no symptoms, no covid. And I live in Manhattan. I live my life, I go out and see friends, but I observe protocols where they don't interfere with my enjoyment of friends. I live with no fear, but I have no problem being cautious, for the sake of others.

Not trying to sound virtuous, but just to say that there are ways to test, testing can work, there are ways to be cautious and still have a life. And, yes, there are still people that haven't had it. (Touching wood.)

 

[kskate2]

You use the word "paranoia," others might use the word "caution," and get tested.

So, the vaccinations are dubious, and the tests are dubious, according to you, right? At a certain point, I guess we all decide to believe what we will, but it's convenient to the doubters argument to doubt the efficacy of the science of everything. There are several different tests, and lab tests are better, because they are administered by professionals. Home testing can be more easily done wrong or contaminated. If there are symptoms, there should always be more than one home test, particularly if they come back negative. Also, testing too early is a thing. But one of my brother's is a bio-chemist in a Harvard medical lab, and he says the home tests are good. (With an obvious "yes" on the lab ones.)

Yes, my (other) brother had it once, completely asymptomatic...he tested because we were having a family get-together. 2 tests, both positive, so we called it off. 5 days later, still positive, still no symptoms. He was vaccinated. But he quarantined, to protect others. The full 10 days, because of the positive tests. He wouldn't have known if he hadn't tested for a specific reason. Which is why we vaccinate and mask.

I also believe it's here to stay, like cold and seasonal flu. But, while there is no cure for the common cold, there IS a vaccination against seasonal flu, which does a great deal to protect the very young, the very old and the immune-compromised. Likewise, the Covid vaccine, IMO, helps protect those who are more susceptible to having a bad and harmful case of it.

I'm with @kskate2, in that I haven't had it, and I don't want to. You say we may not know we've had it. Like her, I get tested a lot for work. Also, as I have mentioned, I participated in a vaccine trial. I have been tested for antibodies, meaning that I had never had it early on, and the year that I was involved with the trial, they took my blood every 6 weeks, to check on my antibodies from the experimental vaccine, and they would have been required to tell me if I had Covid, or had had it at any point. That finished last March. During that time, I did actually get one cold. (Some selfish CU next Tuesday sitting behind me on a long bus ride, coughing and sneezing last Thanksgiving. Two negative home tests, and two lab tests from the trial, because they were so obsessed with my symptoms, and no covid.) Since late March, many tests for work and family gatherings, no symptoms, no covid. And I live in Manhattan. I live my life, I go out and see friends, but I observe protocols where they don't interfere with my enjoyment of friends. I live with no fear, but I have no problem being cautious, for the sake of others.

Not trying to sound virtuous, but just to say that there are ways to test, testing can work, there are ways to be cautious and still have a life. And, yes, there are still people that haven't had it. (Touching wood.)

Agree. Testing can work when done right and frequently enough. I refuse to believe because they say 95% of people have had it or will get it means I should just expect to get it one day. Sorry, not happening on my watch. I've been on planes, cruise ships, buses, church, hair and nail salons, etc. that are literally giant petri dishes of people with no masks.

People may think I go too far, but I don't give a flying fart what someone else thinks. I even screen who I let come into my home. My 82 year old aunt in Chicago had it brought to her apartment twice from grown folks visiting her w/o a mask. She had to quarantine both times. Once in May of 21 w/ no symptoms and again in June of this year w/ symptoms. It's absolute insanity to go around an elderly person who has pre-existing conditions and not wear a mask.

 

[El Dude]

At a certain point, I guess we all decide to believe what we will, but it's convenient to the doubters argument to doubt the efficacy of the science of everything.

I'm just going to respond to this, which has been a rhetorical tactic used by pro-vax advocates, as if questioning vaccines = being anti-science. To that I say, "BS." Science is not a thing that you either trust or don't trust, nor is it a person. It is a process, and involves questioning - and yes, doubt. Especially when there is censorship involved and the whole thing is riddled with politics and profits.

But more to the point, I'm not doubting "the efficacy of the science of everything." I'm doubting what is dubbed The Science as actual, real science, when I see it as propaganda. Meaning, my doubt is not with actual science as a process, it is whether "The Science" is actually good science, and done in good faith - that is, for the good of people. So no, I don't trust Pfizer, or bureaucrats like Fauci, or politicians in the pocket of Big Pharma. Nor do I trust the CDC, and other scientific institutions, especially considering the regulatory capture of the pharmaceutical industry (that is, it is regulated by people involved with what is being regulated!).

 

[Moxie]

I'm just going to respond to this, which has been a rhetorical tactic used by pro-vax advocates, as if questioning vaccines = being anti-science. To that I say, "BS." Science is not a thing that you either trust or don't trust, nor is it a person. It is a process, and involves questioning - and yes, doubt. Especially when there is censorship involved and the whole thing is riddled with politics and profits.

But more to the point, I'm not doubting "the efficacy of the science of everything." I'm doubting what is dubbed The Science as actual, real science, when I see it as propaganda. Meaning, my doubt is not with actual science as a process, it is whether "The Science" is actually good science, and done in good faith - that is, for the good of people. So no, I don't trust Pfizer, or bureaucrats like Fauci, or politicians in the pocket of Big Pharma. Nor do I trust the CDC, and other scientific institutions, especially considering the regulatory capture of the pharmaceutical industry (that is, it is regulated by people involved with what is being regulated!).

I did not say that you were being anti-science. At least you quoted me a bit more correctly in the second paragraph, though I didn't say "the efficacy of the science of everything." We were specifically talking about the testing, which you called "dubious." And I already know that you are skeptical of the vaccines. But what I was further discussing is why the testing seems to prove accurate. What is it that you doubt about the tests? And, while I do understand the points you make above about Big Pharma, etc., I'm not clear what conclusions you're drawing about Covid, in general. Is it a hoax? You're not saying that, because you've said it's here to stay. Is it overblown? Do you doubt the numbers? I have no problem with people questioning. But if it's propaganda, as you say, then to what end? I mean, people have been very sick, people have died, and there is an effort to mitigate damage. I'm really just asking where your specific skepticism leads you on this.

 

[El Dude]

I did not say that you were being anti-science. At least you quoted me a bit more correctly in the second paragraph, though I didn't say "the efficacy of the science of everything."

You did, actually - as I quoted, and as still exists in your post.

We were specifically talking about the testing, which you called "dubious." And I already know that you are skeptical of the vaccines. But what I was further discussing is why the testing seems to prove accurate. What is it that you doubt about the tests? And, while I do understand the points you make above about Big Pharma, etc., I'm not clear what conclusions you're drawing about Covid, in general. Is it a hoax? You're not saying that, because you've said it's here to stay. Is it overblown? Do you doubt the numbers? I have no problem with people questioning. But if it's propaganda, as you say, then to what end? I mean, people have been very sick, people have died, and there is an effort to mitigate damage. I'm really just asking where your specific skepticism leads you on this.

I said a "bit dubious," because I find the whole thing a bit dubious. But PCR testing is rather sketchy, and not recommended in the way it has been used by the person who actually created it. You can dial it up or down in cycles to receive the results you want. I know they mostly moved on from that, but still not confident. And of course it isn't all that controversial to call at-home tests dubious, which can be pretty inaccurate.

As for my overall view, a couple weeks ago I posted this to Britbox:

I tend to agree with you, or at least veer in that direction. I think there are "layers" of this, and I'm not sure where I land....

1. It was so hard, everyone did the best they could, Fauci's a hero (and I'll always cherish my Fauci giftbox).
2. The whole thing was handled poorly, because the institutions and people involved are inept, but there was no significant malfeasance.
3. The whole thing was exploited (for money/power), because the institutions and people involved are corrupt, and decisions were made for economic and political reasons over public well-being.
4. The whole thing was orchestrated, as part of a transformation of society towards greater centralized control (e.g. Great Reset), regardless of the cost to normal people.
5. The whole thing was orchestrated, for even more nefarious and psychopathic agendas (de-population, mass sterilization, further reliance on Big Pharma, etc).
6. Lizard people!

I think the weight of society has moved from 1 to 2, with many veering towards 3, even if mainstream media is still on 1 (though with hints of 2). Depending upon the moment, I tend to range from 3 to 5, with occasional moments of 6. But I'd say 1 is patently absurd, and 2 rather naive. 3 would be my baseline for "at the very least."

 

[Moxie]

You did, actually - as I quoted, and as still exists in your post.

Sorry, I meant of the current topic. Not like Copernicus and Galileo-type "everything." I don't think you believe the Earth is flat.

I said a "bit dubious," because I find the whole thing a bit dubious. But PCR testing is rather sketchy, and not recommended in the way it has been used by the person who actually created it. You can dial it up or down in cycles to receive the results you want. I know they mostly moved on from that, but still not confident. And of course it isn't all that controversial to call at-home tests dubious, which can be pretty inaccurate.

As for my overall view, a couple weeks ago I posted this to Britbox:

Useful to see your view. Thanks for reposting.

 

[Federberg]

interesting....

 

[Kieran]

interesting....

I’d read about this recently, and of course it’ll get filtered through the usual tribal alleys, but it’s important actually that we all accept the limitations of the vaccine, including the obvious knowledge deficit of how it works, something most of us who were vaccinated abruptly discovered after swiftly becoming disillusioned of The Science’s declaration that we might not ever need a booster. That was proven to be a wildly inaccurate - and irresponsible - guess within months of the first roll out.

A related issue is the suppression of data relating to negative vaccine reactions, and now we are where we are…

 

[Front242]

interesting....

SSSSh, don't tell Moxie who apparently "rebutted all of your "evidence" on the heart problems in athletes". <--- How embarrassing then to see the age group on the video you posted is the very age group encompassing all the athletes having heart attacks and/or dropping dead way more since the rollout of the covid "vaccines".

Rolex Paris Masters, Bercy, France - ATP Masters 1000

As far as Rune's stamina is concerned, maybe y'all don't remember being 19 years old. ;) Read my previous post :D

www.tennisfrontier.com

A vaccine so safe it's banned for certain cohorts who of course never needed it in the first place. Astrazeneca so safe they won't disclose any data on research before it was released. Same nonsense as Pfizer looking for 75 years to release data on their amazingly safe vaccine. Now that they've been forced to disclose it sooner they're redacting tons of pages. They should be given life imprisonment.

AstraZeneca no longer pursuing U.S. approval for COVID vaccine.​

^'cos it's so safe. What a shambles the UK predominantly gave this crap to everyone and it's currently unavailable. Laughable.

https://www.reuters.com/business/he...raws-us-application-covid-vaccine-2022-11-10/

 

[britbox]

SSSSh, don't tell Moxie who apparently "rebutted all of your "evidence" on the heart problems in athletes". <--- How embarrassing then to see the age group on the video you posted is the very age group encompassing all the athletes having heart attacks and/or dropping dead way more since the rollout of the covid "vaccines".

I doubt anybody you're trying to reach will watch those videos you posted. Until they are told to by Rhodes scholars or affiliates masquerading as trusted news.

 

[Federberg]

 

[Kieran]

It’s a long video and I didn’t watch it all but it’s about adverse reactions to the vaccine? This is the great lost discussion that’s not happening now. We briefly touched on it the forum recently, the deliberate official suppression of complaints of negative reactions to the vaccines. The US Department of Labour brazenly has it on its own website, encouraging employers to suppress any reports from employees about adverse reactions.

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2023. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

COVID-19 - Frequently Asked Questions | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

www.osha.gov

Under the heading, “Vaccine related.”

Their brazenness is an example of cultural hubris and disregard for science, and the health of workers. They’re more determined to force people to get vaccinated, than study negative effects of the vaccines, which would obviously be what scientists need, in order to produce a more viable vaccine. This is politically - not science - driven, though it isn’t impossible to believe that pharmaceutical companies are also behind it, and obviously they’re only pushing for suppression of these reports because there are so many reports that it threatens the government agenda…

 

[britbox]

Sam Bailey, a Kiwi Doctor has been one of the few bright lights through this shit show. Censored by Youtube multiple times while using evidence-based science.

 

[Federberg]