Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
Thanks for the link! I think I was mixing up both articles in my response to the other comments.
I looked at the charts and it seems like the absolute numbers for side-effects is low (Myocarditis 12-17yrs is 128/2M). The argument I am trying to make is that the risk of an unvaccinated teenager infecting a vulnerable person with lethal covid is higher than the him succumbing to side-effects. How would you frame such a situation in terms of human rights? Maybe I am reading the data wrong and calibrating the risks incorrectly?
Acquired immunity maybe superior, I remember Gummi Bear (from Twitter) making that argument last summer and attributing immunity to Asia's low case counts. We know what the situation is there now, it's horrendous. It seems like covid is still an unknown disease.
Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
data:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/delta-variant-as-pretext-for-youth
Excellent point and thank you for making it.
Thanks for the link! I think I was mixing up both articles in my response to the other comments.
I looked at the charts and it seems like the absolute numbers for side-effects is low (Myocarditis 12-17yrs is 128/2M). The argument I am trying to make is that the risk of an unvaccinated teenager infecting a vulnerable person with lethal covid is higher than the him succumbing to side-effects. How would you frame such a situation in terms of human rights? Maybe I am reading the data wrong and calibrating the risks incorrectly?
Acquired immunity maybe superior, I remember Gummi Bear (from Twitter) making that argument last summer and attributing immunity to Asia's low case counts. We know what the situation is there now, it's horrendous. It seems like covid is still an unknown disease.