The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?
maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.
Parent mentioned moving goal posts, not I.
>maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.
The facts show that vaccine side effects are generally mild, vaccination reduces transmission by 5X or more and that natural immunity offers inferior protection to vaccination. If you have convincing evidence showing otherwise, I encourage you to present it.
vaccine side effects range from mild to death. https://openvaers.com/covid-data
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misus...
There's countless instances of healthy people dying right after the shot, doesn't matter if you wish it away.
Yes it may be a small amount percentage wise, but the more you scale the more absolute deaths you get.
Correct, and this is not the reason. You are misusing it.
> There's countless instances of healthy people dying right after the shot,
Calling BS on that, it's not "Countless", far from it. And it needs to be compared to the - far worse - risks of COVID. This statement is dishonest scaremongering.
No. There is no consensus on the duration of natural immunity, nor do we know how effective it is against variants. We do have confidence in the duration of vaccine-derived immunity and its performance against existing variants (https://www.newsweek.com/natural-covid-immunity-delta-varian...).
>vaccine side effects range from mild to death
You've not provided convincing evidence of this.
From the VAERS website: VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
Can I ask you why you think we have the VAERS system?
VAERS was created as a provision of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. The NCVIA was enacted because manufacturers of childhood vaccines could not obtain robust liability insurance.
A clinical trial !== an investigation into the report. Do you know what the investigation for each of these reports concluded or are you assuming they were "inaccurate".
Have you read these detailed submissions of VAERS? It's very hard to conclude anything other than the vaccine does have adverse effects in some people.
Some people suffered shortly after and were otherwise healthy. It's definitely a red flag to look into.
Personally I think that's up to the individual to decide depending on their bout with covid and how they feel about their chances with the vaccine.
Maybe they've had previous reactions with another vaccine, maybe medical family history, I don't know.
That's why I'm against mandates period.
The only point I'm making is that VAERS data by itself is negligible compared to the effects of covid itself. I understand that it can be frustrating to interact with 2-masks+3-jabs+forever-lockdown+kill-unvaxxed crowd, especially given the political power it wields in the real world, but IMHO the VAERS data does not make a strong case for passing on the vaccine.
So that small reaction should be enough for people with immunity from a previous infection to say, "hey, that's my reason". Not that they need one :)
Exactly! None of your damn business how other people handle their health. Go cower in the basement if you can't handle a (hopefully temporary) less than 15% increase in the death rate for your age cohort.
What does this mean? Vaccine mandates for certain jobs and circumstances are what we are getting, and this is _not_ "mandatory vaccination".
And in fact these mandates enjoy broad support (1). Do you expect the people who agree to be shouting about this? Of course they are not. The only people worked up about it are the minority who don't like it, for various reasons, most of them IMHO misguided, factually incorrect, poorly evidenced, or coming from faulty understandings of relative risk. Echo chambers that make it feel that "people are with us" even with small groups with extreme positions are an unfortunate fact of modern online life. As is disinformation.
The next time that I am on an aircraft or in a restaurant, I would be very happy to hear that everyone else there, staff and customers, are also vaccinated. And that goes triple for if by some misfortune I have to go to a hospital.
I'm not asking that people "be forced to take a medication they don't want" (you are still mischaracterising it as "mandatory vaccination") but it's a stretch that they should ask to opt out of safety measures, and then still insist on being an ICU nurse. Sorry, no. Choices have consequences. it's just such an easily avoidable risk.
But what about their job? What about it? If truck driver goes blind, are you going to let them keep their job out of pity, never mind the damage that it will do?
Most people understand this logic. If you're "as appalled by the mandatory vaccination push as the next guy" then ... since the median next guy isn't appalled much, you aren't appalled much?
1)
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/09/16/polls-sh...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/08/poll-support-vaccin...
And plenty more evidence, at google: "vaccine mandate support"