COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

Would you get the Pfizer vaccine if it were available to you?


  • Total voters
    66

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,597
1,016
113
Anybody looking into boosters? Would be curious to hear if anybody is in one of the trials.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,534
1,102
113
I'm not convinced yet that we will need boosters outside of healthcare and high risk... the vaccines seem pretty darn effective against the variants apart from a few small n studies. We aren't going for herd immunity anymore with all the vaccine resistance... endemic disease is all but guaranteed
 

PotatoMedic

Has no idea what I'm doing.
2,539
1,359
113
I'm not convinced yet that we will need boosters outside of healthcare and high risk... the vaccines seem pretty darn effective against the variants apart from a few small n studies. We aren't going for herd immunity anymore with all the vaccine resistance... endemic disease is all but guaranteed
Israel is reporting about a 39% effectiveness for Phizer against Delta infection. But nearly 100% prevention in hospitalization.
 

GMCmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
1,579
986
113
I'm terrible about remembering to schedule appointments. You know how it goes, you cancel a dentist appointment cause it interferes with your child being born, then on her 7th birthday you remember that you never rescheduled.


Pretty much 0% chance I go for a booster within a year unless its required. 60% chance I remember to do both shots next year (assuming they don't get it down to one) especially if I have to have 48 hours off afterwards.
 

luke_31

Forum Asst. Chief
954
320
63
Israel is reporting about a 39% effectiveness for Phizer against Delta infection. But nearly 100% prevention in hospitalization.
That’s not too bad. Since the whole point of the vaccine is more for the prevention of hospitalization and not just not getting the virus. I think they would have had a better time if they concentrated on making people understand that preventing hospitalization is the reason they are pushing the vaccine so hard.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,534
1,102
113
We want to prevent people from getting the disease and spreading it.

BUT the justification for any of the consequential interventions (like restricting commerce) was entirely about preventing hospitalizations and death.

So if you still get it and it is now the common cold in terms of virulence, well, that's annoying but not consequential and thus new restrictions are not justified.

I saw UK data showing 88% Ve for asymptomatic/mild Delta IF you were fully vaccinated, 96% Ve against severe illness and death. Ve for single dose was like 30something percent.
 

CCCSD

Forum Deputy Chief
1,149
708
113
it’s not all bad…


 

ZootownMedic

Forum Lieutenant
163
9
18
Cool reads, and alot of info. Just like the CDC this thread is full of facts, tales, yarns, padded numbers, speculation, outright lies, and fear mongering. The problem with this vaccine, and all of the pandemic is the lack of truth, facts, and competency that has come out of the government, CDC and the medical community in general. We have trusted, experienced and renknown virologists and epidemiologists saying the vaccine works, and others that say to avoid it. I've seen people with covid have minor symptoms, and some that died. I have personally seen COVID numbers padded, and outright fradulently doctored.

The vaccine pushers have an agenda, and it isn't public health. As others have mentioned, the same people pushing vaccines are partially responsible for the virus. The gain of function research that was authorized by Fauci, through the Wuhan lab, is indisputable. The emails are there for all to read. You can call us conspiracy theorists, and that we aren't following the science, but we all know that isn't true. Some conspiracies floating around are crazy, and some have proven correct. There is no trust, and despite that sheep are gonna do sheep things. If you are high risk, have pre-existing diseases, are elderly, or just feel like getting an experimental vaccination that hasn't been properly vetted than by all means get it. I will not talk down on anyone who wants it.

I however will not be getting the vaccine, and I still have antibodies from getting the virus in October. Please explain why the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity? Why are the 30+ million Americans who contracted COVID not being included in herd immunity statistics? Why is a disease with a 99.5% survival rate being hailed as the next plague? This is AMERICA people. Seems alot of the doctors, nurses, paramedics, emts, firefighters and clowns here seem to be forgetting that. The worst atrocities in the world have been committed under the guise of the 'common good'. Forcing people to inject an experimental vaccine into their body is insanity. Pure and simple. You want it, you get it. Want to force me to get it? Well, myself and millions of others like me will like just have to remind many of you why this country is still free, and why we have the second amendment.
 
Last edited:

CCCSD

Forum Deputy Chief
1,149
708
113
Cool. Gonna shoot people. That’s what your message is. So if your employer mandates it, you’re gonna rise up and shoot?

Cool, cool, cool. Thanks for the warning.
 

SandpitMedic

Crowd pleaser
2,289
1,241
113
I think he means like the .gov forcing it.
Which I also oppose.
if you don’t want it you shouldn’t have to get it. Plain and simple.
 

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,729
2,356
113
Why is a disease with a 99.5% survival rate being hailed as the next plague?
Meh...what's 2,000,000 deaths +/- ....as long as it is not you or yours, right?

Anyways, looks like I am getting ready to deploy to a GOP/Bible Belt heavy state to stand up 2 field hospitals due to recent spikes, and there will be many more to come.

A state with 35% vaccination rate. A state now depleting federal dollars (your tax money) and paying out the wazoo for providers and care to COVID patients who statistically would either not have become COVID + or might not have required hospitalization if the vaccination rates were higher.

Anyone want to take the conversation in that direction? Pure dollars and allocation of your taxes? Do we, a non single payer health care nation, continue to pick up the tab for states/people who refuse to vaccinate? Do we have any obligation to these states and their residents? If we do, then why not mandate vaccines OR regulate where the unvaccinated work or travel? If we do not have obligation, then let's stop responding, stop sending money at federal level and let Darwin do his thing, right?

And another tangent, if you are against mandates, yet feel we (nationally) have an obligation, do you apply this to all other forms of relief? Why or why not? Relief meaning food assistance, utility assistance, and any other federally funded or subsidized program that you may be against because it is an abuse of your tax dollars and you have no say in how or where those funds are allocated.
 
Last edited:

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,326
3,023
113
A state with 35% vaccination rate. A state now depleting federal dollars (your tax money) and paying out the wazoo for providers and care to COVID patients who statistically would either not have become COVID + or might not have required hospitalization if the vaccination rates were higher.

Anyone want to take the conversation in that direction? Pure dollars and allocation of your taxes? Do we, a non single payer health care nation, continue to pick up the tab for states/people who refuse to vaccinate? Do we have any obligation to these states and their residents? If we do, then why not mandate vaccines OR regulate where the unvaccinated work or travel? If we do not have obligation, then let's stop responding, stop sending money at federal level and let Darwin do his thing, right?
The problem with that line of thinking is that you could easily apply the logic of "the greater good" to mandate pretty much anything. It's happened before.

Perhaps the best approach here is to NOT pay federal dollars (tax money) to fund the current crisis and instead let the state residents face the consequences of their own decisions?

It seems to me that isolating an individual or population from the consequences of their decisions is a great way to encourage them to keep making similar decisions. I think there are countless examples of this throughout history as well as much a lot of supporting evidence in the sociological and psychological realms.


And another tangent, if you are against mandates, yet feel we (nationally) have an obligation, do you apply this to all other forms of relief? Why or why not? Relief meaning food assistance, utility assistance, and any other federally funded or subsidized program that you may be against because it is an abuse of your tax dollars and you have no say in how or where those funds are allocated.
Yes. I am against federal mandates of any kind, including (though definitely not limited to) every one that you mentioned here.
 
Last edited:

Akulahawk

EMT-P/ED RN
Community Leader
4,741
1,143
113
Why is a disease with a 99.5% survival rate being hailed as the next plague?
One of the things that is quite often forgotten by those bringing up this particular number is that death isn't the only problem. If you survive but you were unlucky enough that you were on the more severe end of the disease spectrum, your quality of life isn't going to be the same. You can survive but you might end up with some anoxic brain damage. You might survive but you might end up with severe lung disease. While I don't have those numbers in front of me, it's nearly a guarantee that the number of survivors that have long-term sequelae is going to be higher than 0.5%.

Don't get me wrong, even with that, there will be huge numbers of asymptomatic and mild disease cases of C19 and those people will very much likely recover with few, if any, long-term effects.
 

Fezman92

NJ and PA EMT
456
75
28
Some people have permanently lost their sense of smell.
 

SandpitMedic

Crowd pleaser
2,289
1,241
113
People make statements about things like that all the time. One common one is about coming for the guns. People often go the old American adage of “if they take our freedoms there will be blood.” Now it is applied to the government forcing a vaccine.

The independent in me is against any government mandates “for the greater good.” People are free to make their own bad choices. “Omg but COVID costs and time and manpower and risk to others…” is the counter. Okay, well, hamburgers, ETOH, non-compliance with medication, smoking, other drugs, flu shots, etc… all cost trillions in man hours, dollars, hospitalizations, etc. Oh and over time many many lives. Risks lives and put other at risk as well. How many people die of famine and illness in the third world. Yet there are no mandates for the greater good in those regards.

Maybe I’m just rambling now. Anyways my point is after all that is, basically, there isn’t going to be a shooting war over this. So you all can relax. Besides, you heard the old man say you’d better have nukes to take on the gubment.

Although that vaccine got me sick as a dog for 24 hours, I’ll tell you that. That **** was rough.
 

mgr22

Forum Deputy Chief
1,401
593
113
One of the things that is quite often forgotten by those bringing up this particular number is that death isn't the only problem. If you survive but you were unlucky enough that you were on the more severe end of the disease spectrum, your quality of life isn't going to be the same. You can survive but you might end up with some anoxic brain damage. You might survive but you might end up with severe lung disease. While I don't have those numbers in front of me, it's nearly a guarantee that the number of survivors that have long-term sequelae is going to be higher than 0.5%.
To me, that's the scariest part of not getting vaccinated. Here are the most recent studies I've seen:

From the UK's National Institute for Health Research, "up to 1 in 3 people infected by [COVID-19] reported persistent symptoms lasting at least 12 weeks."

From The Lancet, of >73,000 patients admitted to hospitals with COVID-19 from January to August 2020, 39% of those aged 19-49 and 51% of those older developed at least one complication, the most common of which were "renal, complex respiratory and systemic."

There's much more literature out there on "long COVID."
 

CCCSD

Forum Deputy Chief
1,149
708
113
People make statements about things like that all the time. One common one is about coming for the guns. People often go the old American adage of “if they take our freedoms there will be blood.” Now it is applied to the government forcing a vaccine.

The independent in me is against any government mandates “for the greater good.” People are free to make their own bad choices. “Omg but COVID costs and time and manpower and risk to others…” is the counter. Okay, well, hamburgers, ETOH, non-compliance with medication, smoking, other drugs, flu shots, etc… all cost trillions in man hours, dollars, hospitalizations, etc. Oh and over time many many lives. Risks lives and put other at risk as well. How many people die of famine and illness in the third world. Yet there are no mandates for the greater good in those regards.

Maybe I’m just rambling now. Anyways my point is after all that is, basically, there isn’t going to be a shooting war over this. So you all can relax. Besides, you heard the old man say you’d better have nukes to take on the gubment.

Although that vaccine got me sick as a dog for 24 hours, I’ll tell you that. That **** was rough.
I hear you. However…thinking that, which is human nature, and posting it, are two different things. Especially today, when going nuclear is the be-all, end-all to disagreements.

I take those type of threats just as seriously as the totality of the circumstances dictate.

Just curious as to how many Polio vaccinators have been gunned down in the US? Chicken Pox? Measles? TDAP?
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,534
1,102
113
Maybe I’m just rambling now. Anyways my point is after all that is, basically, there isn’t going to be a shooting war over this. So you all can relax. Besides, you heard the old man say you’d better have nukes to take on the gubment.
Maybe a bit, but please stop comparing INFECTIOUS disease to chronic diseases of modern "affluence" like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. I cannot catch morbid obesity from my patient and then give morbid obesity to 6 other people and so on. The "epidemic" of chronic illnesses does not increase exponentially over a period of weeks and months by spreading person to person to overwhelm the health system.

I could use a mediocre analogy of the right to freedom of speech not covering falsely screaming FIRE in a crowded theater, but it is better to point out we do ban smoking in enclosed common spaces because of second hand smoke, not because of the individual is forbidden to poison themselves. Infectious disease is like that. We have mandated vaccines and other public health interventions for well over a century for the common good because it is by definition not an individual issue no matter how much some want to pretend that it is.

The idea that has been repeated by more than one poster in this thread that we cannot justify any abrogation of individual rights in the name of the common good because then anything could be so justified is an easily rejected appeal to the slippery slope. The individual matters greatly, but not to the exclusion of all else. The supreme court agreed over and over that when it comes to public health and vaccination, individual liberty is not absolute. It isn't just about you.

I'm a pro 1A pro 2A mountain guy with a strong libertarian lean, but I am not a libertarian fundamentalist and I cannot stand inaccurate and selective application of libertarian ideals. We live in a society that is an imperfect free democratic republic, not a libertarian anarchy. The founders never intended the latter.

image.png
 
Last edited:

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,326
3,023
113
Maybe a bit, but please stop comparing INFECTIOUS disease to chronic diseases of modern "affluence" like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. I cannot catch morbid obesity from my patient and then give morbid obesity to 6 other people and so on. The "epidemic" of chronic illnesses does not increase exponentially over a period of weeks and months by spreading person to person to overwhelm the health system.

I could use a mediocre analogy of the right to freedom of speech not covering falsely screaming FIRE in a crowded theater, but it is better to point out we do ban smoking in enclosed common spaces because of second hand smoke, not because of the individual is forbidden to poison themselves. Infectious disease is like that. We have mandated vaccines and other public health interventions for well over a century for the common good because it is by definition not an individual issue no matter how much some want to pretend that it is.

The idea that has been repeated by more than one poster in this thread that we cannot justify any abrogation of individual rights in the name of the common good because then anything could be so justified is an easily rejected appeal to the slippery slope. The individual matters greatly, but not to the exclusion of all else. The supreme court agreed over and over that when it comes to public health and vaccination, individual liberty is not absolute. It isn't just about you.

I'm a pro 1A pro 2A mountain guy with a strong libertarian lean, but I am not a libertarian fundamentalist and I cannot stand inaccurate and selective application of libertarian ideals. We live in a society that is an imperfect free democratic republic, not a libertarian anarchy. The founders never intended the latter.
Yes, we all are well aware that individual liberty is not absolute. No one has argued otherwise. I don't think anyone on this website is hoping for a return to a state of nature as Hobbes envisioned it.

One individual's liberty ends where it begins to infringe on the liberty of other individuals. That is the general idea; the philosophical basis for our system of governance and traditional American culture. Following that, we all know and accept that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, that you can't drive on public roadways drunk, that you can't dump dangerous chemicals into the water supply, and that you can't shoot your guns in crowded suburban neighborhoods. Restrictions on those types of activities are well accepted because the externalities of those actions and the ways that they infringe on the rights of other individuals are clear and obvious.

Since you brought up the founders, I would say that while you are correct that they never intended a libertarian anarchy, they certainly were very libertarian on the whole (radically so, by today's political standards) and they definitely did not believe in the existence of any kind of positive rights, which is exactly what you are asserting when you as an individual claim that another person must receive a vaccine in order for you to feel safe.

The vaccines provide very nearly 100% protection from severe disease, which essentially means that anyone who doesn't want to get COVID can protect themselves completely by simply getting vaccinated themselves. When you have the ability to provide yourself with a very high degree of protection, why do you even care what other people do? If you are vaccinated, why does it matter to you at all who else is? Why can't we just let those who want to be protected protect themselves, and let those who don't want protection deal with the consequences of their own choices? It's so simple that I really can't even comprehend looking at it any other way.



*Yes, I know that there are some people who can't receive the vaccine or who don't develop the desired immune response. This is a very small percentage of the population, and there are other ways to protect these folks. What I've never mentioned on this forum before is that almost three years ago, I lost my youngest daughter to a rare form of sarcoma. During the year and a half that she was going through chemotherapy, there were times that her ANC was dangerously low and we had to seriously restrict where we went and who we had contact with. I even stayed away from the house on several occasions because her count was in the low triple digits and as hard as it was to be away from her, I couldn't take the chance on bringing something home from work to her. So I have some idea of what it might like right now if you are one of the people who can't get the vaccine or who it doesn't work on. Here's the thing, though: even if it were somehow possible, I would never in a million years have considered trying to force a majority of the population to accept a vaccine that would have protected her and allowed her to go out and do the things that she couldn't do. Would I have asked folks to do it? Of course. Implored, even? Sure. Begged? Perhaps. But try to make them, under threat of losing their livelihood or worse? No way. Not ever.
 

Top