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

Will you get the covid vaccine when offered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 278 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 106 27.9%

  • Total voters
    380
We were all just reminded why Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter, now rebranded X, is so poisonous to our discourse.

Son of basketball legend LeBron James, 18-year-old Bronny James, suffered from cardiac arrest during a basketball workout. He was rushed to the hospital and, as of Tuesday afternoon, is in a stable condition. As we’ve come to see so commonly with sports stars and conditions like this, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories surged on social media, especially Twitter. The owner of the site couldn’t help but to join in.

Elon Musk wasted no time immediately suggesting the Covid-19 vaccine could be to blame. Musk tweeted (or xeeted?): “We cannot ascribe everything to the vaccine, but, by the same token, we cannot ascribe nothing. Myocarditis is a known side-effect. The only question is whether it is rare or common.”



Musk sent that post only 30 minutes after the first TMZ report on Bronny’s condition was released. He had zero information on what could have caused Bronny’s cardiac arrest, nor does he have any unique insight into Bronny’s potential pre-existing conditions. But Musk didn’t let his lack of evidence spread this anti-vaccine conspiracy theory. A simple “I wish Bronny a speedy recovery” would’ve sufficed.

When it comes to Musk’s unsolicited and unsubstantiated theory, the data doesn’t suggest it is the most likely explanation. Developing myocarditis from a Covid-19 vaccine is rare. In fact, the American Heart Association published a 2022 analysis of nearly 43 million people which found that people are more likely to develop myocarditis from Covid-19 itself than from the vaccine.

It’s also important to note that sudden cardiac arrests among young athletes are nothing new. In fact, in 2014, well before Covid-19 vaccines arrived, the NCAA convened a task force to evaluate cardiovascular care for their students. In 2016, the NCAA published a press release stating: “Sudden cardiac death is the most common nontraumatic cause of death among college athletes, and 75 percent of college student-athlete deaths occur during sports and exercise.”

Now, I’m not saying that Bronny’s chances of having myocarditis from the vaccine are zero. Like Musk, I do not have any deeper insight into the inner workings of this sad, developing case. But I do look at reliably sourced data, which suggests the chances are very low. If he was keen to speculate, I couldn’t help but wonder why, if the available data shows you are in fact more likely to develop myocarditis from Covid-19 itself, Musk didn’t speculate Covid-19 that could have been the cause? Or why didn’t he speculate it may have been another sudden cardiac arrest suffered by a young athlete? The answer seems to be that Musk was seeking to echo anti-vaccine rhetoric...............

 
A Wisconsin doctor in 2021 prescribed ivermectin, typically used to treat parasitic infections, to two covid-19 patients who later died of the disease. He was fined less than $4,000 — and was free to continue practicing.

A Massachusetts doctor has continued practicing without restriction despite being under investigation for more than a year over allegations of “disseminating misinformation” and prescribing unapproved covid treatments, including ivermectin, to a patient who died in 2022, according to medical board records.

And in Idaho, a pathologist who falsely promoted the effectiveness of ivermectin over coronavirus vaccines on social media has not been disciplined despite complaints from fellow physicians that his “dangerous and troubling” statements and actions “significantly threatened the public health.”

Across the country, doctors who jeopardized patients’ lives by pushing medical misinformation during the pandemic and its aftermath have faced few repercussions, according to a Washington Post analysis of disciplinary records from medical boards in all 50 states.

State medical boards charged with protecting the American public often failed to stop doctors who went against medical consensus and prescribed unapproved treatments for covid or misled patients about vaccines and masks, the Post investigation found.

At least 20 doctors nationally were penalized for complaints related to covid misinformation between January 2020 and June 2023, according to board documents, which The Post obtained by filing requests with state medical boards and reviewing public records. Five of those doctors lost their medical licenses — one had his revoked, while four surrendered theirs. Discipline is typically connected to patient care, not just what doctors say.

It is impossible to know how many doctors were spreading misinformation because most states do not monitor or divulge those complaints. But The Post’s requests to the boards yielded at least 480 covid-misinformation-related complaints in the last three years — meaning only a tiny fraction of those led to disciplinary action.

The Post investigation, which included a review of more than 2,500 medical board documents, lawsuits and news stories as well as interviews with more than 130 current and former medical board staffers, physicians, patients, health officials and experts, is the most comprehensive national accounting of the consequences for doctors spreading medical misinformation related to the pandemic................

 
Do those death rates factor in susceptibility? For instance, covid was known to be more devastating to certain ethnic groups, which coincidentally, have a higher per capita rate of population in many southern states. The same can be said for some other co-morbitities, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
That wouldn't explain Wyoming though. The state is 92.5 % white and had the 4th highest per capita death
rate. Covid didn't discriminate.
 
Wearing a seatbelt around the outside of my body is QUITE different than injecting something I'm hesitant about.
I think the jab is a choice. I don't think someone is "stupid" for getting the jab, just like I don't think someone is stupid for not getting it.
But I do remember this STUPID accusation: "You're selfish, you could kill someone by spreading since you haven't been vaccinated. If you get the vax and booster, you'll stop it in it's tracks and can't spread it". I recall that vividly. How STUPID were those accusations?
What is the adverse reaction rate to seatbelts?

 
Wearing a seatbelt around the outside of my body is QUITE different than injecting something I'm hesitant about.
I think the jab is a choice. I don't think someone is "stupid" for getting the jab, just like I don't think someone is stupid for not getting it.
But I do remember this STUPID accusation: "You're selfish, you could kill someone by spreading since you haven't been vaccinated. If you get the vax and booster, you'll stop it in it's tracks and can't spread it". I recall that vividly. How STUPID were those accusations?

I think the mind sets are changing over time, your post didn't receive 10 clown faces, which was pretty standard for typing, anything about the vaccinations that were negative. Your post clearly is pointing the finger at people who are were not only pro Covid 19 Vaccination, but were repeating what the mainstream media was broadcasting.

Do you remember when Arnold said, "screw your freedoms"?!?!

If a sickness or disease has a 1-2% chance of killing you (depending on your age, or medical condition) and the only standard care is a vaccine, that hasn't had 7-10 years of testing, then the known risk is better, than the unknown risk to me.

Add to the fact there was only 1 view and any other view that was contrary was portrayed as misinformation. People should be allowed to hear different view points of subject, without it being filtered. I don't see how people were allowed to make an educated decision, when only one view point was presented. Maybe Arnold doesn't like freedom of information?!?!
 
Last edited:
I think the mind sets are changing over time, your post didn't receive 10 clown faces, which was pretty standard for typing, anything about the vaccinations that were negative. Your post clearly is pointing the finger at people who are were not only pro Covid 19 Vaccination, but were repeating what the mainstream media was broadcasting.

Do you remember when Arnold said, "screw your freedoms"?!?!

If a sickness or disease has a 1-2% chance of killing you (depending on your age, or medical condition) and the only standard care is a vaccine, that hasn't had 7-10 years of testing, then the known risk is better, than the unknown risk to me.

Add to the fact there was only 1 view and any other view that was contrary was portrayed as misinformation. People should be allowed to hear different view points of subject, without it being filtered. I don't see how people were allowed to make an educated decision, when only one view point was presented. Maybe Arnold doesn't like freedom of information?!?
people only yell freedom of information when they want to spread disinformation..
 
We have known about coronaviruses for decades. We didn't just pull the Covid19 vaccine out of our arse. The vaccine was based on decades old technology. We were not starting from scratch. It only seems like we did because a lot of people think they are smarter than the scientists that worked on the vaccine.
 
We have known about coronaviruses for decades. We didn't just pull the Covid19 vaccine out of our arse. The vaccine was based on decades old technology. We were not starting from scratch. It only seems like we did because a lot of people think they are smarter than the scientists that worked on the vaccine.
they don't wanna hear that.. that's not the "freedom of information" they have in mind
 
are you implying that healthly and in shape people haven't gotten and/or died from Covid?
What about the guy who was double vaxed, triple boosted and got Covid 3 times, 2 of those he became very ill. And, I happen to know this person.
 
We have known about coronaviruses for decades. We didn't just pull the Covid19 vaccine out of our arse. The vaccine was based on decades old technology. We were not starting from scratch. It only seems like we did because a lot of people think they are smarter than the scientists that worked on the vaccine.
Like “Gain of Function” Fauci ?
 
What about the guy who was double vaxed, triple boosted and got Covid 3 times, 2 of those he became very ill. And, I happen to know this person.
It's effective in reducing risk.

Like, for example, if you reduce a 1 in 10 chance of something to a 1 in 1000 chance, that doesn't mean it definitely won't happen, it means it's substantially less likely to happen. And if you apply that to a large group of people, it'll happen to fewer people. So in a group of 1000 people, in that example, something that would have happened to around 100 of them would still happen, but only happen to around 1 of them.

And we know that the vaccine is effective in that regard, reducing risk, from looking at what happens in large groups of people who were vaccinated compared to large groups of people who weren't.

So going, "but it happened to this one guy I know," means literally nothing to this conversation.

Do you really not understand this?
 
What about the guy who was double vaxed, triple boosted and got Covid 3 times, 2 of those he became very ill. And, I happen to know this person.
nothing is perfect. there is a good chance that if he wasn't , he probably would have died, and I have no doubt his doctor would agree with that.
I had Covid twice. once before I got the vaccine, and once after. the first time, it felt like someone beat me with a baseball bat. the second time. it felt like I had a mild case of the flu.
 
It's effective in reducing risk.

Like, for example, if you reduce a 1 in 10 chance of something to a 1 in 1000 chance, that doesn't mean it definitely won't happen, it means it's substantially less likely to happen. And if you apply that to a large group of people, it'll happen to fewer people. So in a group of 1000 people, in that example, something that would have happened to around 100 of them would still happen, but only happen to around 1 of them.

And we know that the vaccine is effective in that regard, reducing risk, from looking at what happens in large groups of people who were vaccinated compared to large groups of people who weren't.

So going, "but it happened to this one guy I know," means literally nothing to this conversation.

Do you really not understand this?
Do you really not understand that it should be a freaking choice?
 
It's effective in reducing risk.

Like, for example, if you reduce a 1 in 10 chance of something to a 1 in 1000 chance, that doesn't mean it definitely won't happen, it means it's substantially less likely to happen. And if you apply that to a large group of people, it'll happen to fewer people. So in a group of 1000 people, in that example, something that would have happened to around 100 of them would still happen, but only happen to around 1 of them.

And we know that the vaccine is effective in that regard, reducing risk, from looking at what happens in large groups of people who were vaccinated compared to large groups of people who weren't.

So going, "but it happened to this one guy I know," means literally nothing to this conversation.

Do you really not understand this?
He doesn't care. He's made up his mind and no amount of data is gonna sway him.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom