Not sure that the issue is settled, but there is good science that suggests natural immunity is longer lasting than vaccines.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-covid-recovery-gave-isra...

> 2. that omicron is more deadly than predecessors

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-17/s-africa-...

> get vaccinated.

Blanket statements like this continue to promote distrust.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/1...

Additionally, there is the VAERS database, which has an inexplicable surge of adverse vaccine related incidents since 2020.

Make a personal health decision for yourself and determine if the benefits far exceed the risks. Then, get vaccinated.

> Blanket statements like this continue to promote distrust.

Hypothetically, if the vaccine was safe and effective, what messaging would you use that would be different from "everyone should get vaccinated"?

I guess we will have to wait 70 years to find out if the COVID vaccine is safe or not.

Just looked it up and wow this is actually true! I'm feeling very confident of my upcoming booster now. Guess I'll just hedge my bet by buying Pfizer stock.

Surge in inputs can be explained by the fact that we’re in a pandemic. Based on the investigation of the VAERS reports, what risks are you talking about?

From 1990, roughly ~600 self reported cases of negative vaccine related effects per year. Now, with the COVID vaccine, we are at over 20k a year and counting. From 1990 through 2020 there were various pandemics across the globe, including a few in the US. In that time, there were several innovations with vaccines, as well. So the dismissal that we are in a pandemic seems suspect.

sorry man, the distrust you speak of is generated fud for pokitical purposes.

so while you may have a grain of truth, its not a useful truth when stripped of the heavy antivaxx movement for political gain.

> the science doesnt indicate that:

> A

> B

> C

This could mean that the science disproves the previous statement because of reasons A, B and C, or alternatively it could mean that science does not prove statements A, B and C.

It’s a weirdly ambiguous sentence structure.

The science doesn't indicate that:

1. Vaccine response is longer lasting than natural immunity

2. That omicron is as deadly as predecessors

3. That current vaccines make you less likely to contract omicron

know the facts and make informed decisions

If Omicron is more infectious to the vaccinated than not vaccinated, that would be super ironic wouldn't it be. Would scientists even admit that.

Here's the governments own data for ontario.

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=IwAR2pRUq9GN9EEoDTm0...

If you scroll to the second graph and select 7 days and cases. You will see 2022 cases for the vaccinated, and 778 for the unvaccinated. With the slopes diverging out.

Omicron is still being found in first-generation infected - those who have traveled internationally, and are therefore much more likely to have been vaccinated.

I’m extremely distrustful of the prevailing wisdom on this topic, and have not been vaccinated myself; that doesn’t prevent me from being honest in my analysis.

There is some hope that Omicron will be less severe than the variants that it is displacing, but we won’t have enough data to be confident in that assertion for another week or two at the earliest.

It will be at January before we have an idea how effective vaccine-based immunity is in relation to infection-acquired immunity. We have nothing resembling a representative sample of the general population yet.

> If Omicron is more infectious to the vaccinated than not vaccinated, that would be super ironic wouldn't it be. Would scientists even admit that.

No that would be by design.

particularly if Omicron really is milder to the unvaccinated as well. (that is still an IF). all those vaccinated people will be at the leading edge of the fight to make Omicron the dominant if not the only version of the virus. They will have been a strong wind behind the evolution to "flu like" alterations...

Still go an get vaccinated, Still go and get your boosters. You can't leave this to nature, because nature is constantly trying to kill you. There is not "mother earth" or Gaia... there is only the on-going war that is life. Everything competing to eat or out compete each other for resources to make sure their offspring get to fight the same fight.

The idea of getting more people sick, seems counter intuitive as a goal of a vaccine.

Correct me if I'm misreading your comment.

Scientists made a vaccine that was by "design" to get:

a) "more people sick with new milder variants."

b) "more people sick with stronger variants"

You're claiming a) if it turns out true. b) makes no sense as a vaccination goal. a) really seems unethical gamble if it turns it's false and we end up with b)

Maybe the result (a) is intended and expected, but is not literally "by design" in that there was no other known way to design it.