Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's my main worry with this vaccine more than anything. I trust the short-term results in terms of side effects, it's the long-term like you said that worries me.
If I end up taking it, it'll be like 1-1.5 years in terms of gathering data based on trial participations, and those that are eligible in the first group to take it when it comes out very soon. Hopefully, that's enough long-term data.
The underlying methodology seems sound, and theres a history of using it in other ways that seems to indicate the risk is low. But I dont know that its been quantified, or even if we can truly quantify it. The risk vs reward seems to indicate the vaccine is absolutely the way to go.
The underlying methodology seems sound, and theres a history of using it in other ways that seems to indicate the risk is low. But I dont know that its been quantified, or even if we can truly quantify it. The risk vs reward seems to indicate the vaccine is absolutely the way to go.
Agreed.
But I also don't blame some people for not wanting to take it or being apprehensive/skeptical (even if the concerns end up being not there or unfounded). At least not taking it anytime soon with no idea of the long-term side effects.
But I also don't blame some people for not wanting to take it or being apprehensive/skeptical (even if the concerns end up being not there or unfounded). At least not taking it anytime soon with no idea of the long-term side effects.
We’re starting to see some of the long-term effects of COVID, and they appear to get a lot worse than what you can get from a vaccine.
We’re starting to see some of the long-term effects of COVID, and they appear to get a lot worse than what you can get from a vaccine.
True. But I don't think one has to do with the other. Someone can understand the long-term effects of COVID, and also worry about possible long-term effects of the unproven longevity of a vaccine.
True. But I don't think one has to do with the other. Someone can understand the long-term effects of COVID, and also worry about possible long-term effects of the unproven longevity of a vaccine.
No doubt, but at this point with how massively the virus is spreading, people are going to have to make a choice sooner rather than later.
how do you know they are not just getting injected with Vitamin-E on live TV? Vaccine is for YOU not THEM.
Furthermore, how did they jump to the front of the line? I listened to my governor blather on for 30 mins that the first wave of vaccinations were "for health care workers in the front line". Only 279k doses in the first wave in my state, I'm assuming every blue-card carrying celebrity in Hollywood will bid $1M cash to the guy who drives the Moderna truck, to stop at their house first.
Anyways, there are 40M people in my state, and for my own selfish situation I'm not in a high-risk group. 40M doses EXCEEDS the annual productive capacity of our livestock overlords at Moderna anyway, so I assume I'm about number 39 million-ith in line anyways.
They not "jumping" the line per se. This is more about trying to show paranoid people that the vaccine is on the up and up.
True, they could be taking a placebo, but thats a bit "hollywood" plot for me. I mean, AnyThing on TV can be faked. Have enough people in on it and it could be done. Its just a matter of what you choose.
People believe 'news' that covid is deadly. Others believe 'news' that its not. Both could be 'faked at some level.
If true, people will likely need to get vaccinated every three to five months. There’s no reason why the vaccine would produce a stronger response then a natural infection.
It could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Variable
Experts previously said that antibody tests could show immunity even if exposed to other Corona viruses that aren't Covid-19.
However, a newer antibody test was approved last week that supposedly can identify how much antibody you have. Not just yes/no, but a specific level. However, I don't know whether the new test is specific enough to identify Covid-19 antibodies, or just any strain of Corona Virus.
Does anyone know whether there are newer/better antibody tests which can confirm Covid-19 antibodies?
The speculation in the past was that the reason some people might have no or few symptoms could be due to protection by antibodies to other coronaviruses.
The antibody tests are specific to SARS-CoV-2 and can be quantified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Did they enroll anyone who was high risk in the trial?
Let the fact that the providers of such vaccines are themselves excluded from any liability,guide your answer
We have a system to compensate people who have adverse reactions to vaccines. No need to saddle the makers with liability for reactions that are due to individual responses, not defects in the vaccines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
A vaccine if the disease is deadlier than Ebola. Why would I take a vaccine for something with such a low death rate, and even then, they pump it up to get federal funds as a death that might have COVID 19 brings in the cash, and one without it, not so much.
There are going to be some severe reactions immediately, and then, as the years go by, we will start to see what the long term effects are. So many possibilities looking at the history of vaccines.
Good luck to those who choose to get it, and to your future generations that you pass some of the residual to.
I believe you have been told that no one gets paid anything for COVID-19 deaths. Payments are made for medical care for sick people. Why not stop repeating it? You are wrong.
The history of vaccines is one of overwhelming safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arya Stark
A lot of people really haven't looked into it. Apparently it isn't just one prick and your done.
It is 2 or 3.
It can make you sick with a fever and chills.
And they have admitted they really don't know if it will stop people from spreading the virus.
There is a lot unknown.
Two doses for Moderna and Pfizer, one for some of the others.
Fever and chills for one or two days, easily treated with OTC meds, versus potential hospitalization, possible severe disease, risk of death. Looks to me like the shot is an easy choice.
Moderna and Pfizer have animal trials showing their products prevent infection. You do not spread it if you are not infected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Darwin wouldn’t favor our restrictions. Survival of the fittest.
I guess we should stop treating any medical conditions then. No antibiotics, no BP meds, no insulin, no surgery for appendicitis, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
No. I will depend on, and hide in the vaccinated herd immunity, from you younger generations who have bought into the guilt trip of "protecting the elderly"
There is no such thing as "vaccinated herd immunity", which you have been told repeatedly. There is only herd immunity, and people who have been infected contribute to it, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPbud
This statement is patiently false. 2 shots for the Pfizer + Moderna vaccine, 3 if you're old.
The AstraZeneca-Oxfordvaccine is not yet approved.
The Moderna one requires special cold-storage transport units, it's right out of a sci-fi movie. Watch the TV news yourself and see.
It is the Pfizer vaccine that requires the extra deep freeze.
Good link, but it does not describe a third dose for any of the vaccines for anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
You never know what can happen in life. The symptoms of my autoimmune disease began shortly after my one and only flu shot. Life is unpredictable.
The only autoimmune disease associated with flu vaccine is Guillain-Barré Syndrome. you are more likely to get GBS from a flu infection than from the vaccine.
No . I think when I saw they have a waiver you have to sign before getting it is enough for me to say no . Also all these politicians that are pushing it should have to get it first . So when they start lining up to receive it then I just might but something tells me not one of them will get it .
Darwin wouldn’t favor our restrictions. Survival of the fittest.
"The Fittest", in this case, would be the ones who have evolved mentally enough to know that the mask is a method of protecting the species from harm, and act on the information for the survival of the herd.
When crows feed, one or two of them will light on the ground, and the rest of the flock will sit in a tree to watch all directions for approaching danger. When they finish, they go to the tree to allow another one or two to eat peacefully without fear of being attacked by something they aren't looking for while they eat. This insures as much as possible that all of the members of the flock will continue to thrive.
Same scenario. Don't allow the members of your herd to be attacked by an unseen enemy. Wear your mask.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
