To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

[wooley12]

Don't waste your time skij. It's like fishing for a pennies in an outhouse.

[SumJongGuy]

Another asshole here to ask the same stupid questions that have been covered just to get his dick hard.

Fuck off

Or the same DearOldDad and other sock puppets asshat using a VPN to spoof the IP addresses and post same trolls over and over..

Definitely fuck off..

[skiJ]

Reading comprehension is an important life skill.

no, altasnob - I see exactly what you wrote. - and your 'plausible deniability' defense is no-sale here ;

wooley is correct - you are not worth the time ( or the effort ).

But I have enough Respect for this community that I will continue to identify the b.s. that you try to spread that is genuinely harmful
( claiming that 'the "risk/benefit" analysis (for those under 12) is extremely close' is recklessly irresponsible.

I 'comprehend' it just fine. )

goodbye - again. tj

[altasnob]

People like skiJ are everything that is wrong about America. Sweden decided against reccomending the vaccine for those under 12. This is the minority view. Rather than discuss this, and explain why American doctors disagree, people like skiJ want to brush it off as "Sweden is a dumbass." Old Goat posts a story that trust in government is one of the most important factors at successfully getting through the pandemic. Sweden is mountains above the US in this regard. That's why the Swedish people believe and trust their government and American's don't. Swedes know their governments will be open and honest with them, even if it might not be the position everyone thought they take, or wants them to take.

And I am not saying Sweden is right on that issue. They are the minority. But I would like to see more discussion in our media about why Sweden chose this route, and why we decided a different route. And regarding vaccinations for those under 5, Pfizer has already found a higher vaccine dose DOES provide the immunity response they are looking for for ages 6 months to 5 years. But they chose not to submit this higher dose for approval because of the negative side effects (high fever). So it is always a balancing act of risk-benefit analysis.

Another example of media and Americans like skiJ brushing something under the rug rather than discussing it openly is the phenomenon in Denmark where vaccinated individuals actually were more likely to have Omicron antibodies in their blood. I believe this detail is not important but one can see how some may think it is important. Rather than ignoring it, it should be discussed as to WHY it is not important.

Swedes respect the intelligence of their population and explain things to them. Americans say don't worry about it, just trust us that we are right. No wonder we are in the position we are in.

[wooley12]

no, altasnob - I see exactly what you wrote. - and your 'plausible deniability' defense is no-sale here ;

wooley is correct - you are not worth the time ( or the effort ).

But I have enough Respect for this community that I will continue to identify the b.s. that you try to spread that is genuinely harmful
( claiming that 'the "risk/benefit" analysis (for those under 12) is extremely close' is recklessly irresponsible.

I 'comprehend' it just fine. )

goodbye - again. tj

IMO, he doesn't even believe the positions he takes, he just takes alternative position for the sake of "Opening the conversation" and "allowing for all opinions". Hey I get it sorta, as I do the same thing. I like to push the conversation by offering other points of view. In 1970 I was majoring in Fraternity at a uni in Canada and I went to stay with 5 coeds in NYS after the school was taken over and shut down by the anti war movement. I defended Nixon with "He seems ok" and "He must know what he's doing." They educated me. And I smoked pot for the first time. Fun times

Some posters here it's like having political discussion with the drunk at the end of the bar at closing time. Complete waste of time.

[riser4]

I'm unvaccinated. Literally everyone I know is vaccinated. About half of my friends as well as my entire family got COVID over the past two months, and I was exposed on many occasions. I was literally helping take care of symptomatic family, Father Mother Sister and Brother, as they were testing positive. I was around a few friends as they were sick, and also got notified of exposure at work.

I didn't get sick. I never tested because I didn't feel any symptoms whatsoever.

Now, Pharma is telling me the current crop of vaccines isn't as effective on Omicron, and a new vaccine could be necessary.

Can someone tell me why I should go get the first two shots and the booster at this point? I personally feel like my immune system is protecting me, can someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that.

Show us naked pics of your wife/girlfriend/sister/mom. Or GTFO.

[The AD]

news reports for the past year are full of stories of people like you, with your exceptional immune system - right up until they died from covid.

At this point it seems like there have been enough of these cases that you'd think the anti-vax people would take pause, but they don't seem to. Nothing can seem to penetrate their shell of denial.

[jono]

At this point it seems like there have been enough of these cases that you'd think the anti-vax people would take pause, but they don't seem to. Nothing can seem to penetrate their shell of denial.

Those things only happen in other people's feeds.

[ticketchecker]

Tittays!!!!


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[skiJ]

altasnob, you pitiful, pathetic thing -
( please ) Be careful how you use quotation marks ;
with your "fancy degree" from your "fancy school" you Should know better.

please cite where I said a-n-y-t-h-I-n-g about Sweden, or 'trust the government'.

You, sir, are a liar.

I will be glad to review your "risk-benefit calculation" -
please cite your sources for determining your mathematical calculation and analysis ;

please tell me more about the "high fever" in Sweden -
How High was it ?
How Long did it last ?
How was it treated ?
What other factors were involved ?
( what was the incidence of "high fever" in children that were not being vaccinated at the time ? )

"People like skiJ are what is wrong with America. "

vaccinated and boostered - and politely promoting vaccination iin this thread for five months after a former colleague died of covid in 2020, and life-long friends survived covid in September 2021;

I have 'swept nothing under the rug', altasnob - liar.

vaccination is a scientific, medical procedure -
it is Not a "jab" ;
A fever is a sign of an immune response to being vaccinated.

Unfortunately, "the media" promotes it as a 'side effect '
( even an otherwise-undefined "high fever" May be a normal vaccination response ).

Thank you, wooley -
Thank you to those of you who have actually contributed to the "discussion"
( I've said it before ; you know who you are. Thank you... )

pitiful, -snob. pathetic -
(please ) go back to your "fancy school" and your "fancy friends".

enough for now
( my more recent reading was, Sweden's response to covid is now considered a disappointing failure
( maybe they could take a 'criminal law lawyer' )

(dog) help me. skiJ

[bobz]

This is pretty funny... MacGruber (SNL) tries to defuse bombs while tackling Covid-19 (or, more specifically, Cov-lis, a combination of Covid and... some other thing). (I'm only posting a link to the video rather than embedding, so as to not hurt the fe-fes of people who might consider idiotic takes on how to confront a deadly disease a matter of political views, so sensitive eyes please look away.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=indnwMwNF6w

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The major driving factor for me not getting the vaccine, was/is the censorship.

I feel like I just got censored on here already. I just posted something here that wasn't inflammatory at all, just me asking questions, and it wouldn't let my post it, said it was up for review before it posted. Or something like that. Is that possible?

Are you the real Joe Rogan?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

please tell me more about the "high fever" in Sweden -
How High was it ?
How Long did it last ?
How was it treated ?
What other factors were involved ?
( what was the incidence of "high fever" in children that were not being vaccinated at the time ? )

The high fever was in reference to the Pfizer clinical study for kids under 5. I've already posted this, but since you don't want to read my posts, I'll post again. From the Atlantic:

"A 10-microgram dose also coaxed out a nice antibody response in this same age group, but saddled more toddlers with severe fevers as a side effect. Pfizer decided to nix that option"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-three/621464/

Instead of a 10-microgram dose, Pfizer has submitted a a pair of three-microgram doses. But my point was, there is always cost-benefit analysis. And in this case, the adverse affects of a 10-microgram dose outweighed the benefits of the vaccine so Pfrizer decided to try a smaller dose. Pfizer is erring on the side of caution because they really don't want to try for approval and then have the FDA deny them.

Regarding Sweden, I don't know what data they relied on to come to their decision. All I know is blurbs from Reuters. I would love to see a more thorough explanation of why Sweden is not recommending the vaccine to kids 5 to 11.

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...12-2022-01-27/

[oldnew_guy]

The high fever was in reference to the Pfizer clinical study for kids under 5. I've already posted this, but since you don't want to read my posts, I'll post again. From the Atlantic:

"A 10-microgram dose also coaxed out a nice antibody response in this same age group, but saddled more toddlers with severe fevers as a side effect. Pfizer decided to nix that option"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-three/621464/

Instead of a 10-microgram dose, Pfizer has submitted a a pair of three-microgram doses. But my point was, there is always cost-benefit analysis. And in this case, the adverse affects of a 10-microgram dose outweighed the benefits of the vaccine so Pfrizer decided to try a smaller dose. Pfizer is erring on the side of caution because they really don't want to try for approval and then have the FDA deny them.

Regarding Sweden, I don't know what data they relied on to come to their decision. All I know is blurbs from Reuters. I would love to see a more thorough explanation of why Sweden is not recommending the vaccine to kids 5 to 11.

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...12-2022-01-27/

Does any of this research and analysis you are doing have any bearing on getting your kid vaccinated at the end of the day if your PCP says you should?

[Harry]

The major driving factor for me not getting the vaccine, was/is the censorship.

I feel like I just got censored on here already. I just posted something here that wasn't inflammatory at all, just me asking questions, and it wouldn't let my post it, said it was up for review before it posted. Or something like that. Is that possible?

Post some pics of your sister’s or mom’s tits. No pics yet is why you got censored. JONG.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jono]

Regarding Sweden, I don't know what data they relied on to come to their decision. All I know is blurbs from Reuters. I would love to see a more thorough explanation of why Sweden is not recommending the vaccine to kids 5 to 11.

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.

On any given day 1 out of every 365 eleven year olds turns twelve. Search the threads for "testosterone" to see why earlier than that might be better for boys. Compare and contrast this decision with Sweden's other decisions. Write it all up and I'm sure everyone will start taking your desires serially.

[altasnob]

Does any of this research and analysis you are doing have any bearing on getting your kid vaccinated at the end of the day if your PCP says you should?

Short answer, no. But that doesn't mean I am not interested in it, and think others should be to.

I find the situation with the Pfizer kids under 5 approval process interesting because we already have a very low vaccination rate for kids under 12. So I would think everyone would want the under 5 approval process to be as smooth as possible. But instead, they submitted approval for the two dose despite the fact that two doses alone didn't seem to trigger the needed antibody response in those age 2 to 5. Maybe this is a smart call, maybe not. But to me, it doesn't look good when the Atlantic is calling the process "unusual" and "confusing."

Sweden fascinates me as well. They have smart doctors just as we have smart doctors. Why do their smart doctors disagree with ours? Is it because Swedish kids are more healthy, on average, than Americans? Does America error on the side of recommending vaccination in hopes that that will get the kids most in need of the vaccine vaccinated, even though healthy kids might not need it? I don't know, but I would like to see more open and honest discussion on this.

[skiJ]

The high fever was in reference to the Pfizer clinical study for kids under 5. I've already posted this, but since you don't want to read my posts, I'll post again. From the Atlantic:

"A 10-microgram dose also coaxed out a nice antibody response in this same age group, but saddled more toddlers with severe fevers as a side effect. Pfizer decided to nix that option"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-three/621464/

Instead of a 10-microgram dose, Pfizer has submitted a a pair of three-microgram doses. But my point was, there is always cost-benefit analysis. And in this case, the adverse affects of a 10-microgram dose outweighed the benefits of the vaccine so Pfrizer decided to try a smaller dose. Pfizer is erring on the side of caution because they really don't want to try for approval and then have the FDA deny them.

Regarding Sweden, I don't know what data they relied on to come to their decision. All I know is blurbs from Reuters. I would love to see a more thorough explanation of why Sweden is not recommending the vaccine to kids 5 to 11.

"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them," Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...12-2022-01-27/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-three/621464/

" What actually changed for little kids vaccines ?
( Authorizing two dose vaccine for little kids right now could be a double gamble ) "

by Kimberly J. Wu

the opening paragraph of Kimbery J. Wu's article reads,

"After months and months of being told to wait, then wait, then wait some more, parents eager to vaccinate their littlest kids against COVID-19 have been gifted some good and very confusing news. Yesterday, after weeks of weird and cryptic waffling, Pfizer kick-started the process of requesting an emergency use authorization from the FDA for their infant-and-toddler COVID-19 vaccine; if the agency’s advisory-panel meeting, scheduled for the 15th, goes smoothly, the under-5 shots could be available as a two-dose series shortly thereafter, pending a CDC recommendation. The most optimistic timeline for the arrival of an under-5 vaccine has suddenly shrunk to just a few more weeks."

second paragraph -

"This pivot is, at first glance, bizarre. Six weeks ago, right before Christmas, Pfizer announced that late-stage trials of two mini shots had produced somewhat lackluster antibody results in 2-to-4-year-olds, and a third dose could be necessary to clinch protection. Nothing about the vaccine itself has changed since then; no new data (actually, no data at all) have been publicized. Pfizer still says that a third dose will probably be necessary, and may report results on the effects of that dose around early spring. And yet, the stance on the shots for this group of kids has shifted substantially. Somehow, we’ve gone in an instant from two doses aren’t enough to actually, they kind of are. And both statements, somehow, are meant to be true at once."

the fourth paragraph reads,

"Pfizer did not answer my questions about its new strategy when I reached out, only pointing me to a Tuesday press release announcing that it has sent its first round of data to the FDA. (But not, sadly, to the rest of us.) The company does seem to have collected and analyzed more data on how well the initial duo of shots is working since its last official update, a development reported by The Washington Post on Monday. And those data could well explain how two shots might have once appeared to fall short but now look pretty decent—decent enough, perhaps, to earn the FDA’s emergency okay."


I made it to the part where Kimberly J. Wu states, the vaccine for young children is 'hardly a slam dunk', but ' may "tee up" the children for a third dose '

I could read no further.

This isn't Science and this isn't reporting -
This is a writer(,) who did not get answers to Her questions, And two days before her article was published, the Washington Post had additional information that she refers to in her article without evaluation, And cites a conference call for (financial) "Analysts and Investors" as somehow representing Science ;

Kimberly J. Wu offers a series of one sentence quotes from doctors throughout the region to support her positions / opinions --


https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...id-19-vaccines

I will continue to Search for additional References -

the article from The Atlantic is entertaining reading - and
I have a hard time even considering it journalism - between "teasing out" an immune response, and "jetting" vaccine, and it use of phrases like '(hardly a) slam dunk' and 'tee(-ing) up' children for an additional dose. . .


regarding Sweden, I want to reserve some of my comments until I have reviewed More Info., But ,
I believe Sweden's plan was to pursue population immunity through infection and ( maybe) limited vaccination in high-risk demographics ;
given the decision by some countries to limit vaccination in young males, it is not surprising Sweden is not promoting vaccination in young children ( And remember, vaccination provides benefit to others, in addition to the person being vaccinated. vaccination also provides defenses against disease that is not based on antibody response ( how many times have Multi- and Mofro and LSL described that in the pages of this thread.
Kimberly J. Wu offers a passing acknowledgement of this while focusing on an idea that the antibody response m-a-y not be sufficient. )

(( clarification and correction -
I believe Kimberly J, Wu's article acknowledged the antibody response in six month olds to 2year olds was"robust" ; the antibody response in two year olds to four year olds was described as 'non-inferior' ( that term was not defined, beyond saying the antibody response did not meet the goal of the study..
I would offer a concern based on a Sample of eighteen 'merits further study.' ))


And - it would be nice If policy decisions were made by only medical doctors with the risks and benefits to patients and patients (plural) as being the Only factors ;
in reality, public health policy decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats ( some of whom have medical Education and experience, but often, the bureaucrat's background is politics. ( see Australia ) )
Sweden is a very different culture than the USofA ( universal health care, taxation that would take your breathe away ) - to me, the values of the people ( are significantly enough Different, I would expect Policy to be different as well. )


in closing, a fever is a fever -
"high fever" , "severe fever" - these are not medical terms --

a fever of 100.5F or 103F, and 'persistent for more than 48hours', or 'returning to Normal after 24hours' - these parameters are medically valuable.

to claim Pfizer changed their vaccination dosage because there were severe fevers in a test group of Thirty-Two children, ,,,
I have not found that in any report of Pfizer's data
( the passage in the article, cites the conference call for 'Analysts and Investors' - I have not read the thirty-four page transcript for the specific comment - yet. )

Reuters and Sweden to follow -- skiJ

postscript -

Reuters is a press release -

I believe it states vaccination is available for those (children) in 'high-risk' groups, but that they were not issuing a recommendation that all children ages 5 to eleven be vaccinated.

[wooley12]

Sometimes, to some people, the advice my JV football coach gave me once is the answer. "Don't think, you weaken the team."

[Kinnikinnick]

You guys are wasting your time arguing with a lawyer about anything other than legal matters.

The only people more arrogant about areas they are not experts in than lawyers are doctors re non medical subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You guys are wasting your time arguing with a lawyer about anything other than legal matters.

The only people more arrogant about areas they are not experts in than lawyers are doctors re non medical subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Altaslob is a troll, he admitted as much several pages back


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Harry]

I put altasnob on ignore and this thread is actually readable again.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[LeeLau]

Start with the baseline that altasnob is an all-knowing imbecile and everything spewed forth will have better context.

[wooley12]

Altaslob is a troll, he admitted as much several pages back


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Trolls are people too. Make of that what you will.

[old goat]

How do you insult a lawyer?

You can't.