Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (6 Viewers)

[Arathrael]

But in saying all of that, you can't say with surety that she would still be alive if she didn't get the shot. And why would the state try to sweep this incident under the rug?

COVID-19 vaccine quarterly surveillance reports (September 2021 to November 2024)

Data on the real-world effectiveness and impact of the COVID-19 vaccines.

www.gov.uk

If people were upfront about the vaccine and what it was made to do, as opposed to pushing a narrative that makes this a wonder drug, we could look at these numbers as a major win. Yes, you can still catch COVID but look at the rate of hospitalizations and these numbers seem high compared to the vaccinated but look at the amount of people vaccinated and caught COVID compared to who is in the hospital. And now the raw numbers and rates can go hand in hand to paint a clearer and better picture.

The report has a section on effectiveness against transmission which clearly states that vaccines have shown effectiveness.

It also clearly states on the data tables that they "should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." Because they shouldn't. Because those datasets are not suitable for that purpose.

Stop confusing your own inability to accurately interpret data with reality.

 

[dtc]

So if we are looking for how many are dead due strictly to the receipt of the vaccine, shouldn't we have that same energy to see how many of the millions died from COVID alone?



I'll be the first to tell you that health could have a major effect on the number of deaths due to the vaccine. I also say that it has the same, if not greater effect on those who die with COVID.

I wouldn't because I'm one of those high-IQ, elitists with an Ivy League pedigree and I don't need false equivalencies in order to support my irrational stupidity.

Simply put, if you want a heart transplant and the transplant board's assessment is that your risk of death is higher due to your hair color, pants size, sexual proclivities or vaccine status then you'd better fit their model. And, if you don't and there's something you can do to adjust so that you would, you'd better.

 

[LonghornSaint]

Looks like the mRNA vaccine works very well against the Delta strain to me...from the latest report in your link.

 

[jahsoul357]

That report does not say the vaccinated catch COVID more easily than the unvaccinated.

To make that claim you need to normalize the data first -- what percentage of the vaccinated population is catching covid vs. what percentage of the unvaccinated is catching covid. That will tell you the rate, not raw cases.

For example. Let's take a population of 100,000. And let's say 95,000 of them are vaccinated. Now let's say 20,000 people get COVID from that population. 16,000 of them were vaccinated and only 4,000 were unvaccinated.

You can truthfully say that 4 times as many vaccinated people caught covid. However, only 17% of the vaccinated population caught covid and 80% of the unvaccinated population caught covid. So the rate of infection is 4 times higher in the unvaccinated population. So if your goal is to lower your risk of catching covid, then you are better off getting vaccinated.

This is actually pretty close to the actual numbers in all countries. The unvaccinated population is catching covid at about 3 times the rate as the vaccinated population

The report has a section on effectiveness against transmission which clearly states that vaccines have shown effectiveness.

It also clearly states on the data tables that they "should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." Because they shouldn't. Because those datasets are not suitable for that purpose.

Stop confusing your own inability to accurately interpret data with reality.

And again, if they just touted the true concrete benefits of the vaccine, would there even be a need for this sections. I've been waiting for the adjusted rates to see how things change but currently, as it stands right now based off of unadjusted case rates is the fact that the vaccinated is higher. Let's see what's comes from it and if you are being 100%, you would admit that I've not one time questioned the effectiveness of the vaccine and praised the fact that they are doing exactly what the pharmaceutical companies made them to do; keep folks from getting severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. Do you have any reports that show the adjusted rates?

For convenience, I opened up the latest surveillance in your link, and I'm not finding anything at all that supports what you said about the vaxxed catching covid at higher rate than unvaxxed.

What section or page can you direct me to to confirm this?

Page 38 has the unadjusted rates....still waiting on to see the adjusted rates. *see above*

So, your whole point in all this flim flam is that the dude with the need for a heart has an increased risk of negative effect from the vaccine and so he should be allowed the heart despite the medical analysis that his risk is lower with the vaccine than without and, as such, puts him outside of the pool for the transfer and this is wrong.


Correct?

If so, you are essentially arguing that his stupidity should allow him to bypass the smarter people who suffer from the same conditions.

Stupid.

Reading comprehension.

I don't think it is a cure and never once said it was; you would have to be infected for it to be a cure. lol

It seems like everyone is missing the point to preach the benefits of the vaccine. Everyone wanted to jump on me about this because I said that in this situation, the vaccine presented a "present" risk because of the young man's condition. In order for the vaccine to save his life, he would first have to catch COVID but there is a risk that with his condition, he can die if he takes the vaccine. Anything discussed after that has been centered around everything but that point.

You (and others) ignore the point being made. In his condition, the vaccine is a present risk to protect him against something that he may never get. Right after this, instead of focusing on the point being made, we have pages talking about the benefits of the vaccine, which has nothing to do with the point being made.

 

[jahsoul357]

Looks like the mRNA vaccine works very well against the Delta strain to me...from the latest report in your link.

And I stated that as well....it works great at keeping people from having serious symptoms, hospitalization, and death.

 

[SWJJ]

Page 38 has the unadjusted rates....still waiting on to see the adjusted rates. *see above*


Reading comprehension.

This is HILARIOUS!!! Did you not read the LITERAL 7 pages before this telling you not to interpret the data in that manner?

Did you not read the following several pages that went over why there is definitive evidence that vaccinated people are LESS SUSCEPTIBLE to catching COVID.


The irony that you are criticizing someone else's "reading comprehension" when yours is so obviously waning is all three types of Irony rolled into one.

 

[jahsoul357]

This is HILARIOUS!!! Did you not read the LITERAL 7 pages before this telling you not to interpret the data in that manner?

Did you not read the following several pages that went over why there is definitive evidence that vaccinated people are LESS SUSCEPTIBLE to catching COVID.


The irony that you are criticizing someone else's "reading comprehension" when yours is so obviously waning is all three types of Irony rolled into one.

I read that and if you read my history, we have talked about this previously. But the thing that you would need to clarify is how am I interpreting the data and use my post to back up that assertion.

For recap, I stated that in the UK, the unadjusted rates for the unvaccinated catching COVID is lower than the vaccinated but those rates drop substantially when we are looking at hospitalization and deaths, which shows that the vaccine was effective at what it was made to do.

I also believe that if they just touted the benefits of what the vaccine was actually created to do, the footnote wouldn't be required, because this points to directly to the effectiveness of what was tested during the trials.

That being said, does anyone have or know the science behind how the vaccine minimizes the risk of infection and spreading? *honest question because I would like to know*

 

[Eeyore]

There are people who crave attention, and there are people who are willing to oblige.

 

[SWJJ]

There are people who crave attention, and there are people who are willing to oblige.

 

[dtc]

And again, if they just touted the true concrete benefits of the vaccine, would there even be a need for this sections. I've been waiting for the adjusted rates to see how things change but currently, as it stands right now based off of unadjusted case rates is the fact that the vaccinated is higher. Let's see what's comes from it and if you are being 100%, you would admit that I've not one time questioned the effectiveness of the vaccine and praised the fact that they are doing exactly what the pharmaceutical companies made them to do; keep folks from getting severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. Do you have any reports that show the adjusted rates?


Page 38 has the unadjusted rates....still waiting on to see the adjusted rates. *see above*


Reading comprehension.

You (and others) ignore the point being made. In his condition, the vaccine is a present risk to protect him against something that he may never get. Right after this, instead of focusing on the point being made, we have pages talking about the benefits of the vaccine, which has nothing to do with the point being made.

No, it's you who are ignoring and failing to comprehend.

Maybe you're right. Maybe he does have an increased risk of side effects from the vaccine than others. That said, the board that allocates the scarce resource finds that his refusal to have the vaccine makes him a less suitable candidate than another who has.

And, the rest of the civilised world knows that his increased risk of side effects is insignificant. Further, he should not be prioritized for the organ over someone who will or has already followed medical advice.

Them's the breaks for being an idiot who refuses to take the advice of the people holding his life in their hands.

Your point is lame.

 

[dtc]

And I stated that as well....it works great at keeping people from having serious symptoms, hospitalization, and death.

Just think how great it would work on that idiot who's refusing the get it so he can die without a heart!

 

[SaintInBucLand]

I think it's fair that people who don't get the vaccine cannot get a transplant. But also that means fat people don't get transplants either, and if you made the decision to smoke you don't get transplants as well. Also, no transplants for people who destroyed their liver due to heavy drinking. They are all choices to put yourself in that situation.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it's fair that people who don't get the vaccine cannot get a transplant. But also that means fat people don't get transplants either, and if you made the decision to smoke you don't get transplants as well. Also, no transplants for people who destroyed their liver due to heavy drinking. They are all choices to put yourself in that situation.

I think body-mass index is a metric used in transplant decisions, I'm sure other factors (like the ones you mention) probably matter. Someone with knowledge of the process was saying that some pages ago.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

I think body-mass index is a metric used in transplant decisions, I'm sure other factors (like the ones you mention) probably matter. Someone with knowledge of the process was saying that some pages ago.

It only makes sense, as those at the top of the list be the most healthy and benefit the most. If people have poor metabolic health due to personal choices then they should definitely not be at the top of a recipient list for a transplant.

 

[jahsoul357]

Just think how great it would work on that idiot who's refusing the get it so he can die without a heart!

Unfortunate situation but I also get the hesitation from a heart patient. His risk wasn't just on the backend. Apparently he had all of the required vaccinations except this (which would technically remove the "anti-vax" tag) but at the end of it all, God's will.

It only makes sense, as those at the top of the list be the most healthy and benefit the most. If people have poor metabolic health due to personal choices then they should definitely not be at the top of a recipient list for a transplant.

Agreed