[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-...
A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion, something impossible to be done by any guiding hand due to geopolitics.
Does it though? The other countries that went all in on MRNA vaccines obviously don't have an interest in finding more problems with them.
I have yet to see a single good study that determines risk/benefit stratified by age and risk factors. This rather new study shows that risk of Myocarditis is higher with vaccination rather than infection, in males under 40:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v...
Furthermore, the risk appears to increase with each dose. Yet, many countries are now advising all the 12-17 year-olds to get a third dose - to speculatively decrease an already minor risk. This suggests to me that proper precaution is not actually being pursued, neither in the US nor elsewhere.
Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to.
I think myocarditis is a good example of remaining objective with data. At risk people know what they need to do and it is no longer selfish for the rest of us to not help that. Nobody can kill as many grandmas as Cuomo’s nursing homes, its impossible now and a booster also assumes additional risk whereas the initial doses did not.
I disagree. The question is, is the the system broken or not? To me, this example suggests that it is indeed broken. Then, did it just break or was it broken all along? Is it possible that we mandated vaccinations to millions of people that were more likely to be harmed than helped by these vaccines? If so, would we know, eventually?
The status quo in the pharma industry is to never do more trials than absolutely necessary, lest you risk discovering something that runs counter to business interest. I suspect a very similar attitude would exist among regulatory bodies that risk discovering that it has been advocating a potentially harmful medical intervention to people that didn't need it.
The only entities that have a vested interest in figuring this out are private health insurances. If these vaccines are worth taking, let them charge a premium for refusal.
No, we were repeatedly told that vaccines prevent both transmission and infection, and anyone trying to cynically rewrite history now is using a strawman argument.
The whole point of the OSHA vaccine mandate was to prevent spread. If it was just a matter of how severe the disease is to you, then there is no rationale for forcing people to take the vaccine or any of these mandates, anymore than there would be a rationale for a mandate to force people to lose weight or exercise more. The AMA said in its amicus brief: "the widespread use of those vaccines is the best way to keep COVID-19 from spreading within workplaces".[3]
Here is Biden: "You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."[1]
Here is Fauci: Vaccinated people are "dead ends" for virus[2]
CDC director Rochelle Walensky: "Vaccinated people don't transmit the virus"[4]
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-biden-inflates-01184362...
[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-...
[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A244/206954/2021...
[4] https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-peopl...
[at a greater viral load than without the vaccines because all documents from Pzifer, Moderna, J&J, AstraZenaca, SinoPharm, and the people analyzing those documents made the same conclusion]
> on a medical level, it is clear this wasn't to stop the spread, it was to slow the spread as vaccinated infected have smaller viral load for shorter time period compared to unvaccinated infected, as well as reduce severity and deaths of those that contained a viral load.
this was my goal post, it has not moved.
The understanding I've come to (flavored by my media diet) is very similar to yours...It is just really hard to have a conversation with each other about events when we can't even agree on the base facts.
It'd be nice if we could figure out how to reduce that gap, especially because a lot of these things are simply facts, not opinions.
And that is not to say I am free from blind spots! I am not saying my media diet is the "right one" that gets to the truth, I know I have them, but I do try and reduce them as best I can.
1) creating a standard that was never used by the proponents
2) criticizing the made up standard to discredit the proponents
on a medical level, it is clear this wasn't to stop the spread, it was to slow the spread as vaccinated infected have smaller viral load for shorter time period compared to unvaccinated infected, as well as reduce severity and deaths of those that contained a viral load.
On who we call the "proponents" for this topic, I will concede that I've heard many local influencers, radio hosts and others reduce this to "stop the spread" in reference to any viral mitigation measure, such as masks, distancing, quarantine, and vaccination all part of an amorphous overarching program. But its clear that the people that latch on to "stop the spread" as a reference to the vaccine as a technical term advancement would never have looked at the technical supporting data due to either trust issues with the institution or plain ignorance of how it works. The researchers and their research has always been clear about what performance to expect from the vaccines (except duration of effectiveness which is unknown for both the vaccines and natural immunity, compounded by the variants)