Well for the unvaccinated that are a healthy 40 and under that wear masks, social distance, follow lockdown orders, and otherwise follow CDC/government mandates why isn’t this enough? After all, these policies are intended to protect people and stem the spread. Are you stating these policies don’t work? Are you stating that even though these policies work get the vaccine anyway? If these policies work there is little need to get the vaccine for healthy people 40 and under.

TS arguing in bad faith as usual

Certainly never said taking the vaccine is without risk, I just came to a different conclusion at the end of my risk matrix than you.

There's zero evidence of ADE risk with current covid vaccines. If you want to wait for more data I respect that decision--I just think it's the wrong one. Here are some more updated takes on the issue than what you linked in the Nature journal

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special...clusives/91648

Cliffs:

Scientists designed animal studies to look for ADE. They looked for it in human trials, and they've been looking for it in the real-world data for COVID-19 vaccines with emergency use authorization. So far, they haven't seen signs of it. In fact, the opposite is happening, Lowe noted.

"What seems to be beyond doubt is that the vaccinated subjects, over and over, show up with no severe coronavirus cases and no hospitalizations. That is the opposite of what you would expect if ADE were happening," he wrote.

Furthermore, ADE is an acute problem, and it can be very dramatic. If it was an issue with these vaccines, we would have spotted it by now, said Brian Lichty, PhD, an associate professor in pathology and molecular medicine at McMaster University in Toronto.

"To date, there's really no evidence of ADE with the COVID-19 vaccines. It's all theoretical," he said. "I think all the evidence so far is that ADE is not turning out to be a problem with any existing vaccines or viral variants."

"The bottom line is that not only is the new technology faster to respond to a new viral pandemic, but so much safer and much more clearly scientifically designed," he said. "The S protein vaccines are so much cleaner, so much more carefully defined, and so much lower risk. All you're seeing is one protein from that virus. So the chances for ADE are much slimmer than with any of the older ways for making virus vaccines."

As they said with Trump "there is always a prior tweet for that' exposing the shallowness and hypocrisy of anything he was saying today being countered and debunked by something he said yesterday, the exact same thing is true of Tooth.

I would say it is near 100% of his positions that he has pivoted, caveat, backpedaled on, where the best counter of what he is saying today is what he said yesterday.

He then resorts to I was correct then and I am now, and there is no difference in those two positions.

Nothing encapsulates Tooth better than these two posts by him which he argues are not in conflict at all and he is correct in both cases.

I honestly think the EV bet is that Tooth has never made a single argument in here that he has not backtracked on and basically called wrong later, without admitting it, though.

Pulls back the curtain on the Wizard.
The Emperor has no clothes.

Poor toothy. He/she has been banished to this one thread only across the entire universe and he/she has muck this one up just as bad as all the others.

The problem with this Wizard is he/she has just enough good facts that all his/her data became tainted.

Bro, take coopee back to the politics section with you. AKA the daycare for the mentally unwell. What exactly do you think you're contributing with this? Nothing? I agree. Do better

Some tidbits about masks indoors etc

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/mit-...new-study.html

Caveat, I have been vaccinated (Pfizer both shots) and my wife has been vaccinated (J&J) so I am not against the vaccine. However, there is a legitimate debate about the extent of adverse side effects. There are claims from serious people that side effects are under reported to the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). It is impossible to know for sure. Doctors seem to have a lot of confidence in the vaccine though. Swayed me to take it

Appreciate a post that doesn't involve a personal attack

Would love to see those claims that side effects are being under reported to VAERS.

Always have thought most people overrate the protection from wearing a mask and that wearing one outside was silly

You started it with arguing in bad faith yourself. You dismissed ADE as a real thing, made clown-level arguments about in ADE in dengue. Just pure dishonesty from you.
Really, clown? I think the vaccine it in worth it in terms of risk/reward for 30+. You joined here in 2005. I assume you're over 30. So you see to have come to the exact same conclusion as me.

What are the odds, in your mind, after doing your "risk matrix"? 1 in 100 of unknown bad effects? 1 in 1000? Do you think it's less than 1 in 1000? Under what basis do you banish risk to a level that low for a vaccine that's only been out less than a year?

If you agree that it's at least 1 in 1000, then you also agree my assessment, namely that 30yo is about the correct risk/reward cutoff.

And they found it, several times

Quote:

They looked for it in human trials, and they've been looking for it in the real-world data for COVID-19 vaccines with emergency use authorization. So far, they haven't seen signs of it. In fact, the opposite is happening, Lowe noted.

"What seems to be beyond doubt is that the vaccinated subjects, over and over, show up with no severe coronavirus cases and no hospitalizations. That is the opposite of what you would expect if ADE were happening," he wrote.

Furthermore, ADE is an acute problem, and it can be very dramatic. If it was an issue with these vaccines, we would have spotted it by now, said Brian Lichty, PhD, an associate professor in pathology and molecular medicine at McMaster University in Toronto.

"To date, there's really no evidence of ADE with the COVID-19 vaccines. It's all theoretical," he said. "I think all the evidence so far is that ADE is not turning out to be a problem with any existing vaccines or viral variants."

Obviously, this a true statement. No disagreement here.

Quote:

"The bottom line is that not only is the new technology faster to respond to a new viral pandemic, but so much safer and much more clearly scientifically designed,"

This is where the comments go from reasonable to clown level/"drink the DDT/lobotomize your daughter, trust me I'm a scientist and they're zero risk!" level. You cannot state that the vaccines are safer because there hasn't been enough time to evaluate thir safety. There are plenty of scientists who say that as well. ADE (for new variants - that was explicitly said and you'd note that if you weren't arguing in bad faith), autoimmune conditions, immune downregulation even, we simply will not know on that final few percent of risk until years are gone by.

Quote:

he said. "The S protein vaccines are so much cleaner, so much more carefully defined, and so much lower risk. All you're seeing is one protein from that virus. So the chances for ADE are much slimmer than with any of the older ways for making virus vaccines."

If they're all of those things, why did animals show ADE with the covid vaccine? Why do SARS and MERS vaccines show ADE? We've been lucky, and nothing else, that it hasn't happened in humans. I mean, when it comes to animals, this is true also:

Yet animals got ADE from the covid vaccines, quite severe in some studies. Explain?

If you don't want personal attacks you shouldn't open the discussion with them, clown:
You started the personal attacks. You got responded to in kind then started crying like a child. At least have the good faith to own that. Amazing that you don't.
So what is the long term risk, in your mind, of these vaccines? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? Given me a number. If it's lower than 1 in 1000 in your mind I think you're nuts given that these have been out for less than a year; if you think it's lower than 1 in 100 then we actually agree, hilariously. They've been out long enough now for the confidence in them to rise (for me, 1 to 5% to less than 1%).

The thing is, you're weak mind who wants to shoehorn this situation into "these vaccines are perfectly safe!", and get upset with people who don't follow you down that route to the scientific promised land where DDT is great and lobotomy is a safe cure for your wilful daughter. There are still meaningful risks and plenty of scientists openly say we won't know for sure to a high degree of certainty until a few years have passed. Hence when you work out the odds, the vaccines only make sense for 30+ years old.

I wonder how many people will waste their time reading the above. I read two lines then got bored. It is endless amounts of shite!

I am sure you could disappear for years then come back here and see this guy spending all his time arguing on here and making himself look ridiculous. Pretty much sums up his life, how sad. Tooth clearly has a mental disorder. Oh well....

The Emperor doesn't need clothes, he has large junk and good form. I throw back the curtain myself: I post more data and explicit detailed (good) reasoning than anyone; unlike posts by others, I respect the people who read enough to let them make up their own mind.

You want me to post on the rest of 2p2? I could if I wanted. I could even have a mod gimmick account (how do you think I've survived this long?).

And I have nailed this thread with a better insight at each stage than anyone since the beginning, when there were few facts and large uncertainty. The fact that you think otherwise just shows that you're not very rational. Here's what I nailed:

- Covid will be a big deal/market crashing/lockdowns/hospitals overwhelming without lockdowns/lot of deaths
- Monetary stimulus won't work; the market will keep crashing until we get fiscal stimulus
- Fiscal stimulus will bounce the market off lows
- Europe's low numbers in summer won't help it; R is more important than baseline and Europe will have worse R and will have to lock down and have a much worse experience than the US.
- The Moderna early results show that the vaccine is highly likely to be successful with low side effects and be available in 2020 (I got attacked and mocked by experts for that one).
- Masks are not going to be effective in stopping wave 2 despite experts claiming otherwise; they'll be net harmful
- T Cell immunity is nonsense and we are nowhere near herd immune (this was claimed in summer when Europe was near zero)
- Mutations will wreak havoc

That's just some of them. Pretty good track record overall in providing useful correct information and predictions. You'd rather I didn't provide these insights to 2p2? You'd rather you and your politics forum breathen run all these things so we avoid the wrongthink?

Why don't you post some things in this thread that are a) on topic and relevant and b) useful for people before you start with the personal attacks. It's a low bar even for a politics forum idiot such as yourself, but you could at least try.

I definitely think the odds of me experiencing a significant adverse reaction to the vaccine are much lower than 1 in 1000. Probably closer to 1 in 100,000 with odds of death or disability even way lower than that. This made the choice obvious to me. I also thought there was value in taking any chance of lowering the odds I could infect infect others. I know more research still needs to be done on this.

Sorry if you think being accused of being afraid of shots is a personal attack. It's okay to admit to having irrational fears, many people have them, myself included. Until I see a scientific journal suggest certain groups shouldn't take the vaccine I'll continue to call that take BS. No need to take it personally.

I had always intended to wait at least a year before taking the vaccine, given that they have not been fully tested. I'd like to know if there are any side effects (immediate or long term). I would also like to know how long it lasts. Like if it only lasts a year, then I'm not even going to bother.

Also, the fact that I've already had covid-19 (reinfection is rare), makes me less apt to get the vaccine as does the fact that someone I know had severe reactions to the J&J vaccine.

Please show some statistics to back up your claims then? 1 in 100,000 would already mean this vaccine is 5-10x more likely to cause a serious reaction than the common older vaccines.

So straight up, what odds do you guys put at a mutation that skirts the vaccines and ups the mortality rate to something more like 3%.

How likely we figure that is? If you had to handicap it.

Well, there are two parts here.

1. A mutation skirts the vaccine: High, >70% imo. Of the few mutations we have, two are vaccine and prior immunity skirting to a large degree. The virus still has a lot of the world (including the domesticated and wild mammal population) to burn through yet; I doubt we're 1/10th of the way through potential mutation events.

2. Mortality rate increase. It is claimed by scientists that the UK variant is 50 to 70% more lethal, so there's real world data supporting lethality increases of at least 50%. This is probably due to easier transmissibility leading to faster infection and higher initial viral load rather than anything functionally different in the lethality, but it still shows a pathway. The fact that this is a close cousin of SARS (>10% death rate) and MERS (35% death rate) isn't a good baseline. The fact that it appears to be a systemic disease, attacking the lining of blood vessels and organs other than the lungs for example, is also not a good sign; it's already set up to do systemic damage rather than just lung damage, so mutations have plausible paths for more ability to do harm.

So I'd conservatively estimate a 5-10% chance that we get a >3% lethality variant.

If there's a silver lining it's that mRNA vaccines seem to be holding up well against variants - a lot better than the Oxford vaccine for example - and can be quickly adapted and re-given.

Thanks Tooth. My gut felt like the odds of that happening were serious enough that I needed to factor it into my life plans for the next few years.

Imho if that happens, that'll break the economy here, and the will of our citizens. Not to mention probably push us to decent amounts of civil unrest.

Kind of crazy that that's a real outcome. Wish I didn't still live in a city. Was well on my way too, already own my country land. Just didn't build before it all hit. Now building is CRAZY expensive.

This seems like a terrible risk assessment to me.

Most vaccines don't make it out of trials because of bad side effects. The norm for vaccines is nasty side effects and ADE. Of the ones that do pass animal testing and make it into human trials, more get culled after 1 or 2 years because of issues that weren't caught at earlier rounds, or long term issues that manifest. I'd remind you that we're less than year into testing of covid.

MERS and SARS vaccines (closely related coronaviruses) both had the plug pulled on development because of rather severe side effects and ADE. Covid vaccines caused ADE in animals (but not humans).

Plenty of released vaccines also have had issues that required them to be withdrawn.

So the baseline for "a random vaccine is nasty/net harmful" is > 50%
The baseline for "a vaccine 9 months into testing is nasty/net harmful" is >10%

So where on Earth do you get 1 in 100,000 from?

The risk for covid vaccines come down all the time (we now thousands of people x 9 months + tens of millions of people x 2-3 months), but you can't get it below 1 in 1000 yet by any analysis that I can see. The immune system very complex with lots of strange effects, range from ADE to longer term autoimmune conditions to cross-virus sensitivities to downregulation of the immune system that makes it respond ineffectively. We don't know it anywhere near well enough to say 1 in 1000, let alone 1 in 100,000, and the data we have on vaccines generally at this point of testing (9 months in) puts the odds around 1 in 100 at this point.

No one here seems afraid except for Shuffle, we're mostly doing a sober risk analysis. I'm in an age group (over 30) where I'll gladly take the vacc when it's available here in a few months and not think twice about the risk.

It's too late by the time that happens. The correct way to approach this is from a background risk analysis before the genius scientists catch on years later that drinking DDT and spraying it all over your kids is not a good idea.

I'd also say that generally, there are two ways to do risk analysis:

1. Trust the loser experts. With DDT, scientists were so confident they drank it themselves to prove it was safe! If they're that confident - and they know far more than me, they're the experts after all! - then it must be less than 1 in 1000 that DDT is harmful

2. Use broad background risk assessment. The odds that stuff that does a great job of killing life is also bad for human life is at least 50% per life-killing substance. Thus the background probability that DDT has some harmful effects long term is quite high (at least 1 in 100) and not worth discounting, because it's a novel molecule and it can take years to see the effect of novel things in humans.

You want to approach this as (1). I want to approach this as (2). I think my way is far more justifiable

Of course. Lockdowns made sense early and not late. This isn't hard, bro. It's all about R, death rate, unknowns (both bad and good such as the possibility of early eradication), economic/personal impact, time to prepare a response, and the risk of hospitals overwhelming without lockdowns.

Those factors come together into a pretty rational equation that hasn't changed since this began - in fact it hasn't changed in 200 years. That you're too silly to do a multifactorial analysis and it blows your mind that I can go from "lockdowns good in situation X" to "lockdowns bad in situation Y" when X and Y are far apart on those factors, isn't my problem. It's a monument to your own stupidity and nothing else.

I mean, here's what happened

Situation X: New virus, large bounds on its death rate, no known mitigation response/treatments, incredibly rapid spread (R=3.4), peak flu season, possibility for containment/eradication/time to ramp testing, summer coming in a few months = Tooth says this a no brainer lockdown and says that the experts are idiots for not doing it.

Situation Y: Long term virus (6 month), known death rate, known mitigations/treatments, slower spread (R=1.5), summer/autumn, no possibility for eradication, ample testing available, hospitals prepared, 6 months of winter coming which will hit a naive (non-burnt-through) population hard = Tooth says that a lockdown is stupid.

You see these two as pivot, caveat, backpeddle. Everyone sees you as a complete idiot.

There's no conflict between seeing someone as worthless scum and having endless sympathy for them. Someone's worth at doing X isn't related to whether you should feel sorry for them. As an example, I think alcoholics are selfish worthless nasty people while they're alcoholics, yet I've spent months of my life nursing a friend out of alcoholism because of endless sympathy.

Besides, one is a personal level (concern for their suffering), and the other is an economic level (their ability to provide for themselves and others) vs someone who doesn't realize that the poor are little more than parasites, economically, and they're not being treated unfairly - in fact they have a fantastic life compared to their own efforts.

No, you're just an absolute loser who thinks in black and white because of poor cognitive abilities and a weird personality.

This vaccine is super stressful for me as someone with (drug induced) tinnitus. Short version is the Moderna one is a hot mess for the tinnitus community. The Pfizer one is a bit better. If you react badly to the Pfizer one, you're not supposed to take the second shot if you value your ears.

Probably going to wait for when I'm eligible for Pfizer and see. There's a steroid treatment I can do if my ears blow out the way it's happened for many. The accounts of this are pretty cray.

One thing to keep in mind about the vaccines is that they are actually not approved by the FDA yet, TheyÂ’re usage is authorized under the Emergency Use Authorization Act

Quote:

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States is an authorization granted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added to and amended by various Acts of Congress, including by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA), as codified by 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, to allow the use of a drug prior to approval.[1] It does not constitute approval of the drug in the full statutory meaning of the term, but instead authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security.[1]

There are some pretty nice yurts out there, right? Could last you a few years in a pinch.

How long do you think immunity from infection lasts?

Nobody knows definitively yet. Not enough data.