As an avid social distancer he’s probably more up your street. — AJJ

Many have claimed to have sighted him -- so the chances he exists are significant.

You seem to be taking this personally. That’s a dead giveaway.

Says the anti-vaxxer. :lol:

Go look for Big Foot while you’re at it, genius.

Depends on what that means, of course. I accept it as a fact, and willing to fight against those who wish to destroy the world, even if it’s through their dangerous ignorance.

Conformist assumptions. — AJJ

Nope. Facts- which you deny, as all anti-vaxxers do. Very common.


____
From the CDC:

Over 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support approval or authorization of a vaccine.

Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines since they were authorized for emergency use by FDA. These vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history. This monitoring includes using both established and new safety monitoring systems pdf icon[PDF – 83 KB] to make sure that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
_____

Those pesky doctors, scientists, and experts. All making such big “assumptions.”

lol

The problem aren't those other people and whatever stances they hold or the things they do. — baker

Yes, that’s a very significant problem actually. Not just for me, but the future of the planet.

The problem is that you take for granted that you're entitled to live in a safe world that is obligated to accomodate you. — baker

I take neither for granted.

If person deems those dangers to be significant — AJJ

No— one isn’t entitled to their own facts. 1 in 5 billion isn’t significant and isn’t a reasonable position to deny a vaccine, your “beliefs” aside.

And it does do others harm by denying the vaccine, because the vaccines help us come out of this pandemic— which is demonstrated by the evidence.

Again, your assumption is that it’s the only case, or that the case number, whatever it is, isn’t significant. — AJJ

Again, since you’re the one making the claim that it is significant, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. You’ve cited one example. There may very well be other cases— maybe millions of cases. I’m unaware of that evidence, and I’ve looked. By all means point to studies confirming your claims.

I consider even just one case significant, — AJJ

One in 5 billion is significant to you. Got it.

On those grounds, you really shouldn’t do anything at all, as there are significant risks of death by this standard.

Funny that these are the lengths anti vaxxers, like you, have to go through to justify such an idiotic position. Shame.

You’ve been purposefully downplaying or dismissing the occurrences I’ve referred to, the examples and the statistics. You do this because you’ve made the assumption that the vaccines are unequivocally safe. — AJJ

The examples you cite are rife with problems, but as I’ve stated multiple times— and which you don’t understand— is that I’m willing to grant they’re true for the sake of argument.

Even with that — assuming 1440 deaths, or even ten times that much— it’s statistically insignificant. Sorry if you don’t like math.

We always have to balance the interests of the individual against the interests of society at large; there is no blanket expectation that one will always trump the other. It depends on the right that will be infringed, to what degree it will be infringed, the seriousness of the state's interest, and the tailoring of state action to further the interest of society as a whole while minimizing the infringement of the rights of individuals. At least in the US, I believe that's how it's supposed to work. — Srap Tasmaner

No— the government is always bad and individuals are all that exist. So says the Church of Rand and its followers.

Except when it’s something they approve of, of course.

Such a fact is meaningless when it comes to imposing your will on others. — NOS4A2

I’m not arguing imposing— that’s your argument, remember?

That fact of being in a majority does not justify you imposing your will on a minority. — NOS4A2

That’s called democracy. But regardless, I absolutely do have that right when it effects me. Which is why we vaccinate kids for school, which is why we ban smoking indoors.

If you want to live with the delusion that this affects no one else, that’s your business.

I fear vaccine mandates — NOS4A2

Yes, we know. So you’ve been blathering against school vaccine requirements for years, I suppose.

What a pathetic cause.

Then you're a more mature man than I am. I struggle with it because of the stakes. Climate change and COVID are good examples. This level of ignorance is dangerous. In the past, I have been much more reasonable and civil -- even online, when it comes to issues of abortion, war, taxes, elections, etc. But we're in a new phase of ignorance, one that effects all of us and the future of the planet. So compassion fatigue sits in.

Since there's no point in pretending to have a rational discussion with irrational ignorance, I imagine the reason for doing so is for those who are watching and listening.

In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation.
— Xtrix

Yeah, sometimes people with dogs get trampled by cows. It’s one reason why you wouldn’t say that people *should* walk their dog through a field of cows, and it’s reasonable for them to avoid doing so. — AJJ

In that case, it's "reasonable" to do (or not to do) anything. Which is why your argument is delusional.

It's reasonable not to walk in a field, as there have been deaths by lightning. It's reasonable not to own a house, as they have collapsed. It's reasonable not to get in a tub, as people have slipped and died on them -- far more than from any vaccines, in fact. It's reasonable to ignore anti-vaxxers, given how many people have died of COVID. Etc.

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.

But keep trying.
— Xtrix

Underlying this characterisation is the assumption that it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant. — AJJ

One case presented out of 5 billion isn't an assumption of insignificance. It's the definition of insignificance. Given that's the only evidence you've presented for "deaths" thus far, what else can be concluded?

Seems to me you're assuming significance where is there none. Which isn't surprising, given you're an anti-vaxxer.

Underlying that assumption is your principle one that vaccines are unequivocally safe. It’s question begging. — AJJ

:lol:

You have no idea what that means, but by all means keep using it. I don't mind if you keep looking like a complete idiot.

For those following this odd discussion: this is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence and data. If data were presented that showed that there were a high percentage of deaths -- even something like 1% -- I would count that as significant. I would count 0.1% death rate from vaccinations as significant. The data do not show this.

So here we're left, once again, as non-experts, with a basic choice:

(1) Do we go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and the corresponding recommendations?

Or do we go with:

(2) The minority of experts that say the opposite?

Classic choice, and very revealing.

Those who choose (2), who are not experts, are almost always doing so for religious or political reasons. Climate change, tobacco, evolution, vaccines, etc. (2) in these cases are extremely small, but have a large following -- for understood reasons.

It’s my argument, not a breakdown of yours. So maybe you can dispute it. — NOS4A2

It's a straw man. Not an argument.

If you want to make choices that harm no one else, fine. Do what you want. But, again, sorry to remind you, but we live in a society.

You don’t know. You’re ignorant. You’re scared. Fear and ignorance is the premise you use to justify denying bodily autonomy. — NOS4A2

We do know, because we know how viruses spread.

Fear and ignorance is on your side -- fear of, and ignorance of, vaccines. That's all this boils down to: sheer ignorance on your part. Like with almost everything you discuss.

I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that. — AJJ

Like most anti-vaxxers, you didn't read your own article. But it doesn't matter, because I'm willing to grant it as "true" -- I in fact anticipated this several posts earlier.

Cling to that one death if you want, that's fine. If you seriously think this proves the statement of "death and debilitation," which you clearly do, you're also welcome to that.

In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation. For anyone serious, this is simply laughable. But so be it.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't know what that means, so stop using it.

Call it a “freak-case” if you like — AJJ

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.

But keep trying.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it. Make you look like a bigger idiot than you already are, as an anti-vaxxer.

Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.
— Xtrix

It can be if you can think. — AJJ

It can be if you're a complete imbecile, too. Which is much more likely than an anti-vaxxer on the internet knowing more than thousands of the world's leading experts, who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.
— Xtrix

You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it.

It's not "assumed," it's supported by the overwhelming evidence. Anti-vaxxers like you reject this evidence, of course, but that proves about as much as the fact that flat Earthers and Creationists also deny evidence contrary to their beliefs.

If you don’t own anyone’s body, what gives you the right to force vaccines upon them, make medical decisions for them, or otherwise attempt to assert your will with theirs? Nothing. — NOS4A2

Straw man.

The problem is you don’t know whether I’m affecting people or not. — NOS4A2

If you live in society, you are. We do know. Which is why we mandate vaccines in schools and many workplaces.

Yours is an idiotic and inconsistent view. But I expect nothing else from you.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/howard-stern-anti-vaxxers-go-fuck-yourself-1222672/

I agree with Howard. AJJ and James, both anti-vaxxers, are included in this.

Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this. — AJJ

This isn't about mandates.

Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking” — AJJ

No, it isn't. It's called being an anti-vaxxer, which is what you are.

Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

Data based on reports made to the MRHA. — AJJ

That's not the same as them being reports, or studies. A person "reporting" something is not a report. "A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem."

Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. — AJJ

So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. Which is what I mentioned before with freak cases, of which this (if it's true) would qualify.

There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. There's no death and debilitation with toothpaste, either. Toothpaste is safe and effective, as the evidence shows.

We don't make claims based on freak accidents and anecdotes. If we're serious.

How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? — AJJ

It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. This is not simply an individual choice. I know anti-vaxxers like you don't want to hear that. Too bad.

This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. — AJJ

It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves.

You, an anti-vaxxer, cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine, then state that you disagree with the doctors within this article that say it should in no way dissuade people from getting the vaccine.

5 billion vs. one freak (and inconclusive) case. Millions of deaths from COVID, millions of hospitalizations. Every major medical and scientific establishment advising vaccinations. Yet to anti-vaxxers, like you, it's "perfectly reasonable" to deny the vaccine. Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.

The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite.
— Xtrix

This is question begging. — AJJ

The premises do not assume the truth of the conclusion. Thus, it's not question-begging. You don't know what you're talking about.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.

The conclusion, based on these facts, is that one should take the vaccine -- assuming, of course, that we want to end the pandemic and care about our health and the health of others.

Best to not use terms you don't understand.

According to irrational "libertarians" like this guy, the government is always the problem. Remember, that's the mantra. Socialism bad, government bad. Free markets = necessary and good, for "freedom," of course. "Free to choose," etc.

It's a completely inconsistent, incoherent view. People are drawn to it because it's simple, gives them a principle in which you judge all matters, slogans to repeat, etc. But it has no application in the real world whatsoever.

Going to school or work sick effects other people. Coughing and touching things other people touch effects other people. This is why we have laws that employees in restraurants must wash their hands after they use the bathroom. This is why we have vaccine mandates in schools, and have for years. This is why we have traffic laws. This is why you can't go into a supermarket and start shooting people. We live in a society.

A while ago, wasn't one of the main anti-vaxxer arguments the fact that the FDA hadn't approved the vaccines yet? Funny how they haven't changed their stance...it's almost as if they can't be persuaded by evidence and reason.

Talking to anti-vaxxers is basically talking to walls. It's a bad habit on my part. I think I do it in case others -- who are actually open to evidence and reasons -- see it and can be persuaded.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated — AJJ

Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy.

You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true. — AJJ

No, by deferring to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and by looking at evidence.

You, on the other, hand, as an anti-vaxxer, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.
— Xtrix

I disagree with them. — AJJ

So you disagree with your own weak citations.

Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question."

The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. — AJJ

12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.

You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't.

The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose. — AJJ

They do not, as the articles themselves say.

It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. — AJJ

I'll just quote myself at this point, to save time:

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument. — Xtrix

The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports. — AJJ

They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources."

The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity.

"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times

Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them.

Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. Your "disagreeing" with the very experts you cite is irrelevant to me. You're not an expert, and are in no position to do so.

Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. — NOS4A2

No one has once claimed that. The fact that you have to resort to straw men gives away the bankruptcy of your position.

The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

There are laws made about what we can and cannot do with our bodies all the time. There are thousands of examples.

Your rights stop when you effect others with your body. It's as simple as that. Yes, we do live in a society -- sorry to inform remind of that. We know you're not a fan.

And, again, vaccines have been mandated in schools for decades. According to you, this is illegitimate. Thankfully people like you aren't in charge of public health.

I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. — AJJ

You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.

I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. — AJJ

No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore.

But again, let's assume it's true. This proves what, exactly? Because, as the articles state, it certainly doesn't prove you shouldn't take the vaccines. So it proves that there ARE freak cases out there, which I already anticipated several posts ago, that occur -- as with any vaccine or any product whatsoever? Is this the point you're making?

A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. — AJJ

And Johnson and Johnson, yes. Look at the conclusions to those pauses.

A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. — AJJ

It does not, as the article mentions.

Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. — AJJ

Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.

By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence.

You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you — AJJ

It wouldn't, no. Given that 5.6 billion doses around the world have been given, however, I think the data speak for themselves -- even if we take your desperate and selective searching for "evidence" of "death and debilitation" seriously, it's still extremely safe and effective, especially compared to the COVID death rate and hospitalizations.

But like most anti-vaxxers, string together enough anecdotes, inconclusive studies, freak cases, etc., and this is enough to prove what they already wanted to believe.

You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true. — AJJ

It is true. There is no evidence whatsoever.

That could turn out to be wrong. If evidence is presented that shows this, fine -- then they're freak cases which occur in any vaccine whatsoever. No different than someone dying of toothpaste. It would still make the claim of "death and debilitation" completely delusional.

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument.

And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made — AJJ

You've made an argument, and a ridiculous one. You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. But even granting we take your "evidence" seriously, it still proves exactly nothing about the vaccines. It would be, again, like saying that people have died of the polio vaccine. Even if that's true, it proves exactly nothing about whether one should get a polio vaccine.

The studies you cited, which you ignored, also make it very clear that they should NOT be used to sway people not to take the vaccines. Interesting you leave that out, as it undermines your entire argument. Ask yourself why your own sources are stressing that and get back to me.

They do this because they can’t think. — AJJ

It's very clear who isn't "thinking" here: you, the anti-vaxxer. Again, take it up with the CDC and WHO. Keep fighting the good fight to promote misinformation and dissuade people from being vaccinated -- your ignorance is getting people killed worldwide. It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.

Again -- not holding my breath.

I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2

As soon as you (or your children) enter society, where individual decisions effects others, things change. It's not longer simply about you and your kids. We live in a society.

Things change with traffic lights too. It's no longer an individual decision about whether you've decided you want to follow these rules or not. Maybe your "belief system" tells you that traffic laws are unjust -- doesn't matter.

Vaccines, incidentally, have been mandatory in schools for years, and rightly so.

The question you perpetually struggle with is legitimacy of authority. You struggle with it because you fundamentally distrust governments, as you're a follower of anti-socialist, libertarian bullshit from the Cold War era. But the real issue is legitimacy, not source. In this case, the government (which you want to assume is always wrong and over-reaching) is employing its power legitimately -- if they were to impose mandates on vaccines, which hasn't even happened yet on a national level.

So what you're questioning is the legitimacy. The legitimacy is based on the facts of science and medicine, and on expert consensus. You're in no position to dispute that. If you go with a minority view or a conspiracy theory, that's your business. But for those of us living in the real world, where the spread of the virus effects all of us, mandates are legitimate -- and those who choose not to take them should simply remove themselves from civil society, the same way those who don't agree with traffic laws should as well. If you don't want to abide by the rules we've all created to ensure public health and safety, then find a place where you don't have to deal with others.

You have a right to your beliefs, but no right to harm others.

My risk of dying from Covid even if unvaccinated is extremely small (1 in several thousand), there's no dispute about this, experts all agree here. As such it is completely unremarkable, on a personal level, that I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons — Isaac

Maybe it's impossible for you to understand, but this isn't simply an individual issue.

Also, the fatality rate of COVID isn't the whole picture. Plenty of people get extremely ill, take up hospital beds and ventilators, and have lasting symptoms for weeks or months later, even if they don't ultimately die. It's also more likely to spread in unvaccinated populations, as we're seeing all over the world, and hence mutate into different variants -- which effects everyone. These are factors you, and other anti-vaxxers, want to continually ignore.

We're living in a pandemic. The vaccines have been shown to be effective and safe against COVID and help prevent the spread. Don't like these facts? Take it up with the CDC and WHO -- I'm sure they'll be interested in your assessment.

But given these facts, the choice is clear as day: everyone should get vaccinated. Same with the polio vaccine. The difference? No anti-vaxxer movement back then, of which you're an unfortunate member. There was also much more trust in science and medicine, which doesn't exist for anything that is engineered to be politicized.

Lastly, your examples of skydiving is embarrassing.

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.
— Xtrix

This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp — AJJ

:lol:

As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases -- which is all this is. It's also inconclusive and, as stated in the article, "very rare."

Again, if this is what you mean by "death and debilitation," you can find it with any vaccine. It's complete delusion.

So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume?
— Xtrix

I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694 — AJJ

"A spokesperson from the hospital stressed that this study, which was very small, should in no way deter people from vaccinating and encouraged anyone who has not yet been inoculated to get the jab."

So this is "death and debilitation"? An inconclusive, small study from Israel where they outright say that it shouldn't deter people from getting the vaccine and, again, an example you can give with any vaccine whatsoever? It's as if you want there to be a reason for deterring vaccinations...hmmm....

I'd ask why you're desperately searching for reasons to make ridiculous claims about the vaccines, but we already know the answer: you're an anti-vaxxer. Have the courage to come out and say it.

It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately. — AJJ

It does not detract from the statement. Vaccines are highly effective against COVID -- period. Breakthrough cases happen, yes. They're about 1 in 5,000 or 10,000. If that's not effective, then "effective" has no meaning.

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?
— Xtrix

In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/ — AJJ

You cite "Rights and Freedoms," which is not credible. But even if it were 1,440 deaths -- which it isn't -- what's that percentage? 92 million doses given in the UK so far. You do the math.

There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. They're highly effective and safe, and help slow the spread, which is why health experts are pushing for them to be taken.

Sorry this doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative, but it's true. Anecdotes, inconclusive studies, and freak cases, while fun to talk about, tell us nothing about the vaccines -- even if we take them seriously.

Whether vaccinating the young and healthy on balance helps the vulnerable community enough to warrant the death and debilitation that occurs within the former group. — AJJ

There is no "death and debilitation." You're talking nonsense.

The allegations of death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are tenuous, at best
— James Riley

How so? — AJJ

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.

True, I'm sure you can find some freak cases out of hundreds of millions of vaccinations where something is claimed to have gone wrong. I'm sure you can do the same with the polio vaccine, the flu vaccines, the TB shot, etc. Someone died a week later of a heart attack, someone committed suicide, someone got hit by a bus (who knows -- could there be a connection?). Fortunately, anecdotes aren't evidence.

If you're worried about stuff like that, then the answer to your question is a very easy one indeed: everyone should get vaccinated, old and young.

The type caused by blood clots, for example. Are you disputing that blood clots are a potential side effect of these vaccines? — AJJ

Yes. That was one claim about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, for example, which is not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, and it was shown to be extremely infrequent. It has nothing to do with younger people, or their "death and debilitation." So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume? (Given that you're sincerely just looking to have your questions answered, of course.)

I won't hold my breath.

You, who know nothing about virology, immunology or epidemiology would say "unnecesarily"? On the basis of anecdotes that may or may not be accurate? Are you serious? — Janus

Couldn't have put it better myself.

You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove.
— Xtrix

This is what you’re doing. It’s what everyone does all the time. — AJJ

Not even close. On most issues in the real world — ones that haven’t been politicized— we allow the possibility of being wrong, since our identities don’t hinge on it.

Vaccines are effective.
— Xtrix

Not that effective. People still get ill and a train of booster shots is on the cards. — AJJ

Vaccines are very effective against COVID. The fact that people "still get ill" does not detract from this statement. Nor do booster shots.

The odds of a breakthrough infection from COVID are very small, in fact. When breakthroughs do happen, they're much milder. This is what the data show, which you would know if you cared to learn about this instead of trying to prove an anti-vaxxer ideology, which is what you're doing.

Vaccines are safe.
— Xtrix

Debatable. Lots of documented side-effects, some truly awful. — AJJ

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?

Vaccines slow the spread of COVID.
— Xtrix

Perhaps, but if they do this by reducing viral load and a healthy person’s immune system does this anyway then they’re a superfluous risk for those people. — AJJ

They don't.

"Even when the size of the viral loads are similar, the virus behaves differently in the noses and throats of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated."

But again, it's not simply about YOU and your "healthy immune system," even if it were true. Same as with getting an annual flu shot -- I used to think I didn't need one, because I could handle getting sick, until a doctor (rightly) pointed out to me that it's not simply about me.

Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community.
— Xtrix

It might be *about* the community, but whether they’re overall good for a community is debatable. — AJJ

Everything's "debatable." Maybe the Earth is flat too, that's "debatable."

Why you want to debate only some things you don't understand is obvious -- it's because you're part of this anti-vaxxer crowd. Just be brave enough to own up to it. Stop pretending like you're interested in learning anything, and "just asking questions."

These questions have been answered, as a simple Google search will show. There's hundreds of millions of people vaccinated, and plenty of data on this now. Numerous studies. This is why we have the CDC, the WHO, and human beings who specialize in things like diseases and viruses and the immune system -- call them "doctors," "virologists," and "immunologists," if you will. I think it prudent to perhaps listen to what they have to say about this.

The real issue here, as mentioned before, is that you simply don't trust the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Fine -- that just means, in my view, that you have terrible instincts. But so be it.

Vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of COVID. That's good for the community, anti-vaxxer "skepticism" (delusions) notwithstanding.

It won’t make a shred of difference. Why? Because the very fact that you have decided to “question” this issue, but don’t do so in almost any other area of your life, means you’re one more person who’s jumping in with a “side” — and you’ve happened to pick the wrong side, probably because of political or religious reasons and, hence, in bad faith. You’re not interested in learning anything. You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove.

But just in case, this is what we know:

Vaccines are effective.
Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines slow the spread of COVID.

Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community. Same reason we wear a mask— YOU may not care if you get it, but that’s not the point of a mask.

It takes place in the nose, of course.

But are stumped by your questions, despite their having been answered repeatedly.

I’m sure you’ve understood them well.

Yeah, I hear Alex Jones is in the running this year.

I guess that proves it. Please take your discoveries to the AMA, CDC, or WHO. You could win the Nobel Prize.

Here is a good case of what I mentioned above: someone who doesn't know what they're talking about deciding to go with quackery and conspiracy theories over the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Terrible, terrible judgment at its finest. It's like these losers who have two choices and always manage to pick the wrong one.

Imagine thinking the world's experts haven't asked themselves -- or don't have answers to -- your very profound "questions." I'm always in awe of this, especially with climate deniers. Now it's manifesting as COVID and vaccine denial, apparently. Same basic phenomenon.

Maybe I'll try it one day. I'll pick a topic -- one that hasn't even been politicized -- like physics, walk into a university and start arguing with the professor, confronting him with questions I've conjured up on my own (because I'm a very stable, and definitely not brainwashed, contrarian). I bet it feels amazing to have that level of ego.

Yes, and those questions have been answered, numerous times. If you're unaware of them, it's because you're unwilling to find them -- nothing more.
'
True, there could be a vast global conspiracy involved. But short of that, it's crystal clear what one should do: take the vaccine.

has been a doubling down on a mistake which those who have participated in it find themselves unable to admit to—principally governments and media but the general population included. — AJJ

:lol:

Thankfully there are geniuses like you around to steer us in the right direction.

I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"? — James Riley

We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate.

I think this entire thread is a ruse to justify child pornography, which is repugnant by almost any standard. Including it in the same category as drugs or prostitution is ridiculous.

If you enjoy viewing nude pictures of children, or watching them engage in sex acts, then you have a problem, should acknowledge that problem, and should seek help for it.