I don't understand the logic involved here. Why would anyone be willing to take 40 pills for 5 days straight but unwilling to get a vaccine shot?

Secondly, and this one applied to me: given how new the vaccine is, and the slight chance of heart inflammation and blood clotting among other things, many people would rather passively get COVID through no fault of their own, and very likely recover from it easily like most, rather than purposefully get a shot which means they’re directly playing a role in, in their mind, potentially bringing harm to themselves.

I waited 8 months of general availability of the vax, and then I was comfortable enough with the (lack of) side effects to overcome fear #2.

1: https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.ht...

Since nearly all academic research is funded by pharma, you will never find research that goes against pharma that is sourced from an institutional setting. And those outside that system who do publish their studies are swiftly labeled as quacks by the pharma PR apparatus, and pursued by captured state licensing boards professionally. And I might add, such character assassination is readily repeated without scrutiny by many smart individuals.

But, I also knew a couple family/friends of friends who were older and obese who were hospitalized from it.

I agree that the side effects are overblown. But so is much of the hand wringing over getting the vaccine or not getting it.

1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28101688/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Here also is a CNN article titled "Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be 'colossally stupid'" from just a year ago (prior to the election) listing several instances of vaccines-gone-wrong:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...

Or, it was about spreading FUD before the election, the very same FUD they'll crucify you for today. (For the record I agree with the article. But the bias is clear given the context regarding when it was released.)

> The example given in the article is about vaccines with attenuated viruses and mRNA vaccines are not attenuated viruses which removes a whole bunch of safety issues, hence why these vaccines are the safest form of viral therapy that has been developed by biologists and virologists.

And, yet, what they all have in common is they're vaccines, made by human beings, who are not infallible. Hence the reticence by many in the general public, including myself, to rush to go get one. We're not really disagreeing here, but I'm giving you a window into the mind of those who aren't as quick to endorse an injection into their body as you are, or as I was after waiting half a year.

1: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

You appear to be dangerously ignorant of how vaccines work. Obviously no vaccine can prevent exposure. However many other vaccines such as that for measles are highly sterilizing, in that they prevent the virus from establishing an active infection in the body. Unfortunately the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any significant extent.

Here are the actual stats in the US on how many people have died after vaccination

> Since more than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA, this data reflects a vaccination-death ratio of 0.0018%. [2]

You can compare that to all other risk factor for death if you want but it turns out that getting the vaccine is basically the single most effective way of preventing death from a novel and highly contagious airborne respiratory virus.

But you're entitled to your opinions. To each their own I guess.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...

2: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-relat...

All the pills are going to do is convince some suckers to pay up for a treatment that they could have avoided if they'd gotten a free vaccine. There are no situations in which the pills are any better, all they do is lower the chances of death when people inevitably get infected because they refused to get the vaccine. At best the pills are a palliative measure which I guess is better than nothing but is not a substitute for a vaccine.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. We're not getting anywhere.

These pills are not even a long term solution. Repeatedly using them introduces mutations in human DNA:

> A drug that’s so good at messing with viral RNA has led some to ask whether it messes with human DNA, too. (Merck’s trial excluded pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women of childbearing age had to be on contraceptives.) This is a long-standing concern about antiviral drugs that introduce genomic errors. A recent study suggests that molnupiravir, taken at high doses and for extended periods, can, in fact, introduce mutations into DNA.

So every dosing regiment of the pills means you are upping your chances of getting cancer. This is exactly the type of trade-off I would expect to be made by people who have no clue how vaccines work.

Many often change their attitude when things go from "an unknown risk of possible future encounter" to "certain to have contracted".

Conversely, people with other health problems or who are terrified of covid might get both.

1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82862-5

1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/04/fit-and-health...

I'm not sure what your link demonstrates. I didn't say that healthy people can't die from covid.

The odds are stacked against them as in they are less likely to survive if they contract the virus without being vaccinated. Outward appearance of health are unrelated to cytokine storms because cytokine storms are a confluence of genetic factors and viral DNA and unrelated to any outward appearances of health. In any case, the links I've presented are evidence enough for me to be convinced that vaccination is the right answer and if you're not convinced then that's fine. We can agree to disagree about the risk factors.

Now, how exactly am I using the phrase incorrectly?

> ...so you are underestimating the odds of contracting the virus and surviving, i.e. the odds are stacked against them and they don't realize it.

Explain how I'm using it incorrectly.

Previous poster explained why the odds are not stacked against unvaccinated people who are otherwise healthy.

Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

Seriously, despite it being more likely for an unvaccinated person to have serious adverse effects than a vaccinated person, overall an unvaccinated person is still more likely to not have serious adverse effects than to have them. Regardless of the relative difference, the absolute odds is what the phrase is referring to.

The "odds being stacked against" something declares that one is very likely to experience an unfavorable outcome, stacked suggesting a strong disadvantage.

Again, I fully agree with all of your points, you are correct in all points except the usage of that particular phrase.

Obviously, also, there are breakthrough cases, though most which result in hospitalization are in immunocompromised people; not sure if they've trialed this for them or not. At any rate it would be better than nothing.

It's very, very unusual that someone can't be given any of the covid vaccines (in general, even if you're allergic to the ingredients in one, another will be suitable). Immunocompromised people are generally vaccinated (they're one of the first groups that most countries did) but it's questionable how effective the vaccine is in them; it is, at best, likely less effective than in the general population. And, certainly, in heavily vaccinated countries, ICUs are largely a mix of the few unvaccinated, and vaccinated people who are either immunocompromised or have very severe health problems. Antivirals have an obvious role to play, there.