9 ms·

Availability has nothing to do with what I've said and I think you know I'm not speaking to that group If you have access and you deliberately turn it down ove

Availability has nothing to do with what I've said and I think you know I'm not speaking to that group If you have access and you deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase, that's who I'm raging at

yucky 5y ago
>deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
- crispypotatoes 5y ago
  The same thing is being said about long COVID Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here
peteradio 5y ago
Recovered people were excluded from trials so conclusion of trials says nothing for them. What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? If that is a significant percentage, realize your anger is being channeled into restrictions against these people you are not speaking to.
- crispypotatoes 5y ago
  > What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? I'm not going to sit here and guess You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
  - peteradio 5y ago
    So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
    - crispypotatoes 5y ago
      > It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now? Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frightened-vaccine-sceptic-fighting-life-6504148 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten... Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death. It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about numbers mattering. I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/ https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/ Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group. If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
        crispypotatoes 5y ago
        > I guess you are in Australia? Nope > In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything Here's an article for that site telling you about the benefits of a universal vaccine - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists-urge-pursuit-universal-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists... It's also worth reading through their other studies about vaccines, as well as how they're looking to tackle the issues with vaccines themselves - https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&query=vaccine&commit=Search https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&q... > Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group. I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does > If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again. You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all. EDIT: someone turned off replies lol I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects

yucky 5y ago

>deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

crispypotatoes 5y ago
The same thing is being said about long COVID Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here

peteradio 5y ago

Recovered people were excluded from trials so conclusion of trials says nothing for them. What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? If that is a significant percentage, realize your anger is being channeled into restrictions against these people you are not speaking to.

crispypotatoes 5y ago
> What percent of vaccine holdouts do you reckon have already been infected? I'm not going to sit here and guess You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
- peteradio 5y ago
  So you don't have those numbers on hand? It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now?
  - crispypotatoes 5y ago
    > It seems crucial, if 100% of unvaccinated have already recovered then what is to be gained by vaccinating now? Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frightened-vaccine-sceptic-fighting-life-6504148 https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten... Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death. It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about numbers mattering. I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/ https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/ Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group. If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
      - crispypotatoes 5y ago
        > I guess you are in Australia? Nope > In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything Here's an article for that site telling you about the benefits of a universal vaccine - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists-urge-pursuit-universal-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists... It's also worth reading through their other studies about vaccines, as well as how they're looking to tackle the issues with vaccines themselves - https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&query=vaccine&commit=Search https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&q... > Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group. I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does > If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again. You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all. EDIT: someone turned off replies lol I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects