COVID data

[HALL85]

https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/coronavirus/vaccine/study-links-covid-vaccine-health-issues/

Potential linkage, albeit small, but this is part of normal drug delivery and approval process, that was fast tracked during the pandemic. Hopefully the numbers stay small as more data becomes available over the next few years.

 

[shu09]

There were more than a few people who posted on here who, when some of us pointed out that this was rushed and there were no long term studies, said there was nothing to worry about, everything had been tested, etc. Shows you what groupthink and propaganda can do.

 

[HALL85]

There were more than a few people who posted on here who, when some of us pointed out that this was rushed and there were no long term studies, said there was nothing to worry about, everything had been tested, etc. Shows you what groupthink and propaganda can do.

Exactly….the danger of sitting in an echo chamber.

 

[Merge]

There were more than a few people who posted on here who, when some of us pointed out that this was rushed and there were no long term studies, said there was nothing to worry about, everything had been tested, etc. Shows you what groupthink and propaganda can do.

No one here suggested that there was no risk with vaccines, just that these vaccines showed to have low risk. Nothing has changed there. This study looked at a hundred million shots and noted very low risks associated.

 

[HALL85]

No one here suggested that there was no risk with vaccines, just that these vaccines showed to have low risk.

Completely untrue. There were multiple posters that said exactly that when we were all having the discussion about how the EAU deviated from the normal approval process.

Nothing has changed there. This study looked at a hundred million shots and noted very low risks associated.

Right now (which hopefully stays that way). And this is why there are three phases of clinical trials that take years and years to demonstrate safety and efficacy before commercialization. These are still only 2-3 year old vaccines.

 

[cernjSHU]

99 million people vaccinated and any side effects seem to be microscopicly rare.

 

[HALL85]

99 million people vaccinated and any side effects seem to be microscopicly rare.

See my post above….

 

[Merge]

Completely untrue. There were multiple posters that said exactly that when we were all having the discussion about how the EAU deviated from the normal approval process.

The posts are all still here, show me where I (or anyone here) said there were no risks with the vaccine.
I do recall a few here downplaying the risks of the virus though, and being incredibly wrong.

Right now (which hopefully stays that way). And this is why there are three phases of clinical trials that take years and years to demonstrate safety and efficacy before commercialization. These are still only 2-3 year old vaccines.

Over a million in the US dead from the virus and far more would have been had the vaccine not been accelerated. Nothing in this study suggests were were wrong in fast tracking the vaccines. In fact, it's very much the opposite.

 

[HALL85]

The posts are all still here, show me where I (or anyone here) said there were no risks with the vaccine.

I never accused you of stating there were no risks. There were numerous posters that went the vaccine shaming route, as opposed to it being a personal decision after consulting a physician. Many here and those in power were calling for mandatory vaccinations.

I do recall a few here downplaying the risks of the virus though, and being incredibly wrong.



Over a million in the US dead from the virus and far more would have been had the vaccine not been accelerated. Nothing in this study suggests were were wrong in fast tracking the vaccines. In fact, it's very much the opposite.

And the vast majority of those who died had comorbidities, and, or are slow to see a physician and get treatment.

You are twisting words. Fast tracking the vaccine was the right decision, especially to help those with risk factors. The article doesn’t suggest that and nor do I. But to stick your head in the sand, and say there were no risks by fast tracking it was inaccurate and naïve.

 

[Merge]

And the vast majority of those who died had comorbidities, and, or are slow to see a physician and get treatment.

Sure, and many more would have died had the vaccine not been fast tracked.

But to stick your head in the sand, and say there were no risks by fast tracking it was inaccurate and naïve.

No one said there were no risks with fast tracking though. Who are you suggesting had their head in the sand?

We had to fast track it. We didn't have a choice, and yes there are risks associated with fast tracking anything... and when another pandemic hits, we will fast track another one and it will probably be the right thing to do again. The entire reason why we have emergency authorizations and fast tracked processes is so we can adequately respond to an emergency type of environment.

In the initial clinical trials, the vaccines showed a very low risk profile. The fear was that there was not enough time or data to understand if that risk profile was accurate. In studies years later, the vaccines still show to have very low risk. That's good news for the pro-vaccine crowd here.

 

[HALL85]

Sure, and many more would have died had the vaccine not been fast tracked.

You’re arguing with yourself. Of course we needed the vaccine.

No one said there were no risks with fast tracking though. Who are you suggesting had their head in the sand?

There were tons of people that were suggesting it was perfectly safe, and that they were supporting mandating.

We had to fast track it. We didn't have a choice, and yes there are risks associated with fast tracking anything... and when another pandemic hits, we will fast track another one and it will probably be the right thing to do again. The entire reason why we have emergency authorizations and fast tracked processes is so we can adequately respond to an emergency type of environment.

Once again, you are arguing with yourself. Fast tracking was the right thing to do. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

In the initial clinical trials, the vaccines showed a very low risk profile. The fear was that there was not enough time or data to understand if that risk profile was accurate. In studies years later, the vaccines still show to have very low risk. That's good news for the pro-vaccine crowd here.

It was perfectly fine to be pro vaccine. The issue was vaccine, shaming and mandating for everyone.

 

[cernjSHU]

I’m sorry. Seems like it’s one of the safest vaccines in history. In 99 million people only 190 people developed Gillian Barre disease. Holy crap. Is that really a link? What the percentage. .00000019%. The study states that there is no proof for causation.

Plenty of people complained of how fast the vaccine was being approved. Didn’t trust the process etc. S

 

[shu09]

Plenty of people complained of how fast the vaccine was being approved. Didn’t trust the process etc. S

The current Vice President was one.

 

[shu09]

Once I saw the covid survival rates (well over 99%), I knew it was a giant overreaction. The vast majority of those who died were very old and had comorbidities. Nearly anything could have killed them to begin with.

The entire covid era was a dystopian nightmare. I'll never forget it, and we need to stand against anyone who tries to do it again. The most eye-opening experience of my lifetime.

 

[HALL85]

Once I saw the covid survival rates (well over 99%), I knew it was a giant overreaction. The vast majority of those who died were very old and had comorbidities. Nearly anything could have killed them to begin with.

The entire covid era was a dystopian nightmare. I'll never forget it, and we need to stand against anyone who tries to do it again. The most eye-opening experience of my lifetime.

It always should have been about personal choice. Mandating the vaccine under threat of losing your job or vaccine shaming was wrong. Example of Government overreach and fear mongering.

 

[SHUSA]

2 of the 3 main take aways. i assume this is the exact same for any vaccine including mandatory childhood vaccines.

• The adverse effects were rare in the more than 99 million people studied
• Researchers stressed that the link does not prove causation

 

[Merge]

I’m sorry. Seems like it’s one of the safest vaccines in history. In 99 million people only 190 people developed Gillian Barre disease. Holy crap. Is that really a link? What the percentage. .00000019%. The study states that there is no proof for causation.

Exactly. The ability to sequence the genome and create these vaccines so quickly which have a very small risk profile was pretty damn impressive really.

I did not believe we needed to mandate the vaccine anywhere. It's just a shame that the ridiculous fearmongering about the vaccine caused so many people to perceive a larger risk with the vaccine than the virus. That alone caused way more harm than the vaccine did.

 

[Merge]

The vast majority of those who died were very old and had comorbidities. Nearly anything could have killed them to begin with.

The vast majority of the country has comorbidities. If "nearly anything" could have killed them, then the Covid year deaths would have been similar to any other year where those same people are more susceptible to sever illness from flu or other illness.

The reason that the Covid year deaths are so much higher is because Covid killed them when other things normally would not have.

 

[shu09]

The vast majority of the country has comorbidities. If "nearly anything" could have killed them, then the Covid year deaths would have been similar to any other year where those same people are more susceptible to sever illness from flu or other illness.

The reason that the Covid year deaths are so much higher is because Covid killed them when other things normally would not have.

You conveniently omitted the most important part of my post, where I said they were VERY OLD, the primary factor in covid outcomes (which you know full well). Fits your MO here of twisting words/posts to suit your agenda and create never ending discussions.

These folks (very old with comorbidities) would have died from most viruses/infections/sickness. Just so happened that covid came along that year.

 

[Merge]

You conveniently omitted the most important part of my post, where I said they were VERY OLD, the primary factor in covid outcomes (which you know full well). Fits your MO here of twisting words/posts to suit your agenda and create never ending discussions.

I'm not twisting or omitting anything. You're suggesting that Covid deaths were mostly very old people who would have likely died anyway from some other illness.

I'm telling you, that is bullshit.

Excess death statistics prove you are wrong. I'm not sure why you don't care about what the actual data shows. Hundreds of thousands of deaths under 65. There were hundreds of thousands of deaths of people who would not have died if not for Covid.

You have consistently downplayed the risk of the virus, and overstated the risk of the vaccine and you think I'm the one with the agenda? Please. My "agenda" driven takes here on Covid have held up well over time.

I didn't bring this up. These conversations just never end because you just want to keep saying the same nonsense without anyone challenging you. You brought up "groupthink and propaganda" here in response to a study which showed that the risks from the vaccine were very low. Rather than take the time to understand the what the study said, you went with the knee jerk reaction assuming that this study said something else... and yet, I'm the one with an agenda? ok...

 

[HALL85]

Exactly. The ability to sequence the genome and create these vaccines so quickly which have a very small risk profile was pretty damn impressive really.

I did not believe we needed to mandate the vaccine anywhere. It's just a shame that the ridiculous fearmongering about the vaccine caused so many people to perceive a larger risk with the vaccine than the virus. That alone caused way more harm than the vaccine did.

Development of the vaccine and other treatments was incredibly impressive and demonstrated the ingenuity and innovation of American industries.

Fear mongering and politicization happened on both ends of the debate. And almost no attention given to management of risks including one’s own health.

The vast majority of deaths were the result of comorbidities, age, delayed response in diagnosis (or a combination). I wonder what the difference in deaths would have been if the messaging would have been focused on 1) Speak to your physician, 2) Actively reduce your risk factors and 3) Be thoughtful about protecting family and others who were high risk.

 

[shu09]

Yes, you are.

 

[Merge]

Development of the vaccine and other treatments was incredibly impressive and demonstrated the ingenuity and innovation of American industries.

Fear mongering and politicization happened on both ends of the debate. And almost no attention given to management of risks including one’s own health.

The vast majority of deaths were the result of comorbidities, age, delayed response in diagnosis (or a combination). I wonder what the difference in deaths would have been if the messaging would have been focused on 1) Speak to your physician, 2) Actively reduce your risk factors and 3) Be thoughtful about protecting family and others who were high risk.

Absolutely agree on all of that.

 

[Merge]

Yes, you are.

If my agenda is understanding data, sure. My "agenda" driven takes on this issue held up well over time.

 

[cernjSHU]

The first outbreak of Covid was very serious. People were dying in droves. It affected people of all ages. My wife was in the front lines in Hackensack Hospital. Even healthy young people in their 30’s. Most of the time they did not die but they did suffer serious health issues like strokes.

We were dealing with an unknown disease that was killing many people. Better to be safe than sorry. SHU09 was wrong about almost everything on CoVid. Remember when he said it would not kill many people. Then it’s only old or people with comorbidities. Oh you mean people who have asthma? There are an over 20 million people who have asthma, around 40% of the population is obese. We are talking massive amounts of Americans who were at high risk. And we are not even talking about the elderly. And we have people talking about the choice to take the vaccine. A vaccine that was unbelievably safe.

No one had an issue with the polio vaccine. Which at the height only killed 3,145 people. And 21,000 were left with mild paralysis. If SHU09 was around back then, what would he say? Eh, it’s only killing kids and very few of them at that?

 

[shu09]

People who are healthy and don't have comorbidities shouldn't have had their lives upended in the name of protecting others who couldn't take care of their own health to begin with.

The polio vaccine was tested and proven safe, plus it actually addressed a serious disease. This one was not tested properly and the disease isn't nearly as serious.

 

[Merge]

People who are healthy and don't have comorbidities shouldn't have had their lives upended in the name of protecting others who couldn't take care of their own health to begin with.

Right We should only have upended lives to prevent an unacceptable number.

Acceptable is different, given the situation that we face because of China's recklessness. This is a war, the politicians say. Well, wars have casualties. I would say something under 100,000 would be acceptable. We will come in well under that according to most models.

 

[HALL85]

The first outbreak of Covid was very serious. People were dying in droves. It affected people of all ages. My wife was in the front lines in Hackensack Hospital. Even healthy young people in their 30’s. Most of the time they did not die but they did suffer serious health issues like strokes.

There was no vaccine available then and even some of the early treatment regimens turned out to be deadly (early intervention with ventilators).

We were dealing with an unknown disease that was killing many people. Better to be safe than sorry. SHU09 was wrong about almost everything on CoVid. Remember when he said it would not kill many people. Then it’s only old or people with comorbidities. Oh you mean people who have asthma? There are an over 20 million people who have asthma, around 40% of the population is obese. We are talking massive amounts of Americans who were at high risk. And we are not even talking about the elderly. And we have people talking about the choice to take the vaccine. A vaccine that was unbelievably safe.

And those people should have consulted their physicians at the outset and would have likely been recommended to take the vaccine. And if you were obese shouldn’t that be a wake up call to prioritize dealing with it. Once again where was the messaging?

No one had an issue with the polio vaccine. Which at the height only killed 3,145 people. And 21,000 were left with mild paralysis. If SHU09 was around back then, what would he say? Eh, it’s only killing kids and very few of them at that?

Because it was tested and released based on the approval process that was in place at the time. Less than 23% of the population has gotten their COVID vaccine in 2023. Is the majority of population “anti-vaxxer’s”?

 

[Merge]

Less than 23% of the population has gotten their COVID vaccine in 2023. Is the majority of population “anti-vaxxer’s”?

The circumstances and risks from the virus in 2023 were very different than they were in 2021 and 2022.

As the virus evolved, the benefits from preventing transmission to others and chances of severe illness both decreased. High vaccination rates in 2021 and 2022 and lower in 2023 tells me that many people assessed their risk properly.

 

[HALL85]

The circumstances and risks from the virus in 2023 were very different than they were in 2021 and 2022.

Where is the government messaging on the differences?

As the virus evolved, the benefits from preventing transmission to others and chances of severe illness both decreased. High vaccination rates in 2021 and 2022 and lower in 2023 tells me that many people assessed their risk properly.

I believe that when the vaccines were launched about 70-65% of the population were vaccinated (similar to flu immunization).

What data do you have to support that claim about assessing their risks?

The messaging continues to be about everyone getting vaccinated. Nothing has really changed except the hysteria/ fear mongering has subsided and public may not care.

 

[Merge]

Where is the government messaging on the differences?

The government isn't going to shift their position frequently because people will misconstrue why they did, and keep up the fearmongering nonsense. The virus tomorrow may behave differently than it does today and the CDC would have to change their position again. That's not something the government want to have to do. A blanket recommendation is fine, and lets be real here... no one cares what the government recommends. It probably has an inverse impact. Michelle Obama telling people to eat vegetables probably caused an increase in carnivore dieting.

What data do you have to support that claim about assessing their risks?

I said what the data says to me. Feel free to interpret it differently, but if I didn't see a different vaccination rate under vastly different circumstances, then I would have believed that people are just programed to do whatever the government says. The fact that it is low, in a low risk environment suggests to me that people are reacting to a shift in the risk of the virus.

The messaging continues to be about everyone getting vaccinated. Nothing has really changed except the hysteria/ fear mongering has subsided and public may not care.

The virus changed. The risks of severe illness after infection and risk you could pass Covid to someone else are much different today than they were 2 years ago. That's why I got a flu vaccine this year but not Covid. If the circumstances changed, then I would assess and decide what to do.

 

[HALL85]

The government isn't going to shift their position frequently because people will misconstrue why they did, and keep up the fearmongering nonsense. The virus tomorrow may behave differently than it does today and the CDC would have to change their position again. That's not something the government want to have to do. A blanket recommendation is fine, and lets be real here... no one cares what the government recommends. It probably has an inverse impact. Michelle Obama telling people to eat vegetables probably caused an increase in carnivore dieting.

Some people will believe whatever the government tells them. Some people will do the opposite. Others will do differently. I look at recommendations with a critical eye. Lots of good information but some big mistakes also. Remember, the food pyramid was a recommendation by the FDA and not supported by any clinical data. There are other examples where government agencies failed miserably.

I think people would take the FDA more seriously if they did adopt changes, adjust, and we’re truthful. Heck, they were complicit with Perdue Fredrick!

I said what the data says to me. Feel free to interpret it differently, but if I didn't see a different vaccination rate under vastly different circumstances, then I would have believed that people are just programed to do whatever the government says. The fact that it is low, in a low risk environment suggests to me that people are reacting to a shift in the risk of the virus.

I think a good part of the population views the vaccines more skeptically today, even if they won’t admit it. I got the J&J vaccine only because I wanted to travel and I was not sold on the RNA technology. We never mandated it at my company. There was lots of peer pressure and other forces when the vaccines were first launched. Remember when people used to ask each other if they had been vaccinated or not? Then the fireworks started.

The virus changed. The risks of severe illness after infection and risk you could pass Covid to someone else are much different today than they were 2 years ago. That's why I got a flu vaccine this year but not Covid. If the circumstances changed, then I would assess and decide what to do.

 

[shu09]

I too got the J&J and regret being pressured into getting it. Would like to see a safety study on that to see if there are any long term risks I need to be aware of. Seems like everybody, even these researchers, forgot there was a J&J shot.

 

[Merge]

I too got the J&J and regret being pressured into getting it. Would like to see a safety study on that to see if there are any long term risks I need to be aware of. Seems like everybody, even these researchers, forgot there was a J&J shot.

The study posted above was a global study and most countries used Astra Zeneca as their viral vector alternative to mRNA. The Astra Zeneca had a very similar risk profile to the previous J&J studies I saw, so it seems safe to assume the results for ChAdOx1 in that study would be a good starting point. Slightly elevated risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, and blood clots compared to mRNA vaccines or unvaccinated. Slightly lower risk of myocarditis than mRNA, though still slightly elevated over unvaccinated.

All of the adverse events were still extremely rare and like any vaccine, the rare side effects that do occur show up fairly quickly.

 

[cernjSHU]

People who are healthy and don't have comorbidities shouldn't have had their lives upended in the name of protecting others who couldn't take care of their own health to begin with.

The polio vaccine was tested and proven safe, plus it actually addressed a serious disease. This one was not tested properly and the disease isn't nearly as serious.

First, healthy people did get seriously ill from CoVid. Some suffering significant health issues like strokes. COVID effected everyone a differently. It was a roll of the dice. And many people died. Here is a vaccine that is unbelievably safe and you are still bitchin about it. Get over it.

Second, polio vaccine was implemented in less than a year from the clinical trials to the general public. Do you think in 70 years since that time, that the time frame could be sped up based upon the medical advances?

 

[Gohall129]

The vaccines are protected from “risk” / “adverse reactions” as no one is definitively and consequentially able to prove that the vaccine caused the long term effect vs. the infection itself considering most Americans have in fact had the virus at one point in the last 3 years.

That being said. These vaccines were not safe. Data on MRNA vaccines has been manipulated and if anyone works in healthcare here, such as I, you will have an understanding of how data manipulation has been a foundation of FDA and pharmaceutical guidelines over the last 50 years

 

[Merge]

That being said. These vaccines were not safe. Data on MRNA vaccines has been manipulated

I really don't believe that is likely to be true at this point. We now have years of data from all around the world. If there were risks beyond the rare events that do occur, they would have shown up somewhere in the data by now.

If you're assuming the data was somehow manipulated in every country, it would still be showing up with higher mortality rates, higher incidence of certain diseases or something, but that really does not seem to be the case.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

The vaccines are protected from “risk” / “adverse reactions” as no one is definitively and consequentially able to prove that the vaccine caused the long term effect vs. the infection itself considering most Americans have in fact had the virus at one point in the last 3 years.

That being said. These vaccines were not safe. Data on MRNA vaccines has been manipulated and if anyone works in healthcare here, such as I, you will have an understanding of how data manipulation has been a foundation of FDA and pharmaceutical guidelines over the last 50 years

 

[Gohall129]

I really don't believe that is likely to be true at this point. We now have years of data from all around the world. If there were risks beyond the rare events that do occur, they would have shown up somewhere in the data by now.

If you're assuming the data was somehow manipulated in every country, it would still be showing up with higher mortality rates, higher incidence of certain diseases or something, but that really does not seem to be the case.

Again check your sources who is behind the funding of the publications and then think that institutions aren’t going to put their name at risk by going against the grain.

This is something that many of us will not get answers to in our lifetime. The actual origins, why it was intentionally designed, why it was released, how it was released. The timing of the vaccines, the efficacy, the list goes on and on. Every thing we know is a lie.

 

[Merge]

Again check your sources who is behind the funding of the publications and then think that institutions aren’t going to put their name at risk by going against the grain.

If you were talking about one or two studies, I’d get the skepticism. That’s not where we’re at though. A ton of studies from all over the world. Everyone involved from all over the world has nefarious intent?

Additionally, entirely outside of the studies, there would be signals that something is wrong. Excess deaths would be increasing, they’re not. Excess hospitalizations would be occurring, they’re not. A signal suggesting that the vaccine causes significant harm is just not there.

They showed risk similar to other vaccines. We just vaccinated a gigantic amount of people very quickly, so the small risk was amplified and the politicization made it worse.