I have a problem specifically with the effective part.
What is the point of the vaccine for those that are not at risk.
We've been told that it does not matter if you are vaccinated or not you still transmit the virus. So the only point of the vaccine is to protect yourself, if you are not at risk then why should we take it?
If you are young, even 40s is not a great risk to you, if you are healthy without comorbidities the odds of being killed are probably as low as being hit by a car.
So what is the point in putting this experiment in you?
The main argument I keep running up against is "it doesn't keep you perfectly safe, but it reduces symptoms so you're less likely to spread it.
Now, if I get sick, I'm staying home. Hell, I might even wear a mask to the store if need to go and I'm coughing shit all over the place. But if what you're saying is correct, there really isn't any good reason to get the shot.
While not sure if related directly but my mother in law was rushed to the hospital because the tip of her fingers turned black after getting vaccinated.
They doctors made sure to tell her it was not vaccine related from the start and then said that it is do to a pre-diagnosed blood disorder she had. No one mentioned that the vaccine combined with the blood disorder most likely caused her fingers to turn black and in need of treatment.
The CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services, together with 15 of the country’s leading medical and public health organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association — issued a joint statement after the June meeting saying that they “strongly encourage everyone 12 and older” to get the shots because the benefits far outweigh potential harms.
50-80% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disesase.
98-100% efficacy in preventing death.
Sinovac is an inactivated virus vaccine. Old technique, cheap, nothing special about it, it's been used in flu shots for decades. Won't eliminate the virus, but it will still protect a lot of people from serious illness/death.
It's about safe as any vaccine realistically can be, because it's a tried and tested, well known method of vaccination that we've had for a long time - exactly the kind of safety level you'd want for something you intend to roll out across entire populations.
I would have no issue if the government told me get jabbed this with every now and then for the next couple of years, because, and it still boggles my mind that I'm saying this about a Chinese vaccine against a Chinese virus that the Chinese lied about once they realised they'd failed to contain it, but I trust the safety of Sinovac.
My only complaint would be the humiliation of giving the Chinese more money to fix a problem they fucking caused.
Meanwhile they still call it "sAfE aNd eFfEcTiVe".
I have a problem specifically with the effective part.
What is the point of the vaccine for those that are not at risk. We've been told that it does not matter if you are vaccinated or not you still transmit the virus. So the only point of the vaccine is to protect yourself, if you are not at risk then why should we take it? If you are young, even 40s is not a great risk to you, if you are healthy without comorbidities the odds of being killed are probably as low as being hit by a car.
So what is the point in putting this experiment in you?
Also they quietly admitted that it doesn't even lower your viral load, and therefore it doesn't reduce the chances of spreading the virus.
So the only reason to take the vaccine is if you're old, obese, or have certain pre-existing conditions.
Do you have a source for that?
The main argument I keep running up against is "it doesn't keep you perfectly safe, but it reduces symptoms so you're less likely to spread it.
Now, if I get sick, I'm staying home. Hell, I might even wear a mask to the store if need to go and I'm coughing shit all over the place. But if what you're saying is correct, there really isn't any good reason to get the shot.
Found the link:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html
Have an archive link, in case they decide they said too much.
https://archive.is/64iDR
Awesome, I'll be forwarding this to a few people.
The CDC admitted it. I'll try to find the link.
Natural immunity lasts longer. Immunity though mRNA loses most of its effectiveness in 8 months or less.
A doctor tested the blood of people who were exposed to SARS (2003). Showed they had T-Cell structural resistance to SARS-CoV-2.
It sure as hell isn't safe for all women.
One of my aunts developed a major vision problem in one eye shortly after taking one Pfizer shot.
She still went and got the second shot even after suffering an adverse side effect.
Clown world.
Was it anterior uveitis? It's an eye inflammation that's been popping up in people who have taken the Pfizer shot.
Here's the data on it: https://www.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-cases-of-eye-inflammation-study-675839
It might be this.
They apparently said she had sudden degeneration in her retina.
While not sure if related directly but my mother in law was rushed to the hospital because the tip of her fingers turned black after getting vaccinated. They doctors made sure to tell her it was not vaccine related from the start and then said that it is do to a pre-diagnosed blood disorder she had. No one mentioned that the vaccine combined with the blood disorder most likely caused her fingers to turn black and in need of treatment.
Regardless of what the powers that be may have ever intended, there are various cases of men and women suffering adverse effects.
Operation Warpspeed is the worst thing Trump has ever done.
WaPo article so that NPCs will believe it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/19/moderna-vaccine-myocarditis/
"We decide what's good for you, serf."
Don't forget the AAP is funded almost exclusively by Pfizer, and when that was pointed out they quietly pulled that information from their site.
The fact that they are even included in this decision is astounding.
>That feel when Sinovac is the only vaccine I trust not to fuck me up.
The irony is not lost on me.
Part of me wonders if Sinovac is just part of the placebo effect?
50-80% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disesase. 98-100% efficacy in preventing death.
Sinovac is an inactivated virus vaccine. Old technique, cheap, nothing special about it, it's been used in flu shots for decades. Won't eliminate the virus, but it will still protect a lot of people from serious illness/death.
It's about safe as any vaccine realistically can be, because it's a tried and tested, well known method of vaccination that we've had for a long time - exactly the kind of safety level you'd want for something you intend to roll out across entire populations.
I would have no issue if the government told me get jabbed this with every now and then for the next couple of years, because, and it still boggles my mind that I'm saying this about a Chinese vaccine against a Chinese virus that the Chinese lied about once they realised they'd failed to contain it, but I trust the safety of Sinovac.
My only complaint would be the humiliation of giving the Chinese more money to fix a problem they fucking caused.
Sometimes, uselessness is better than the alternative.
60-80% efficacy, looks like.
Moderna widely believe to be the wort, except for all the other ones...
Moderna is the fall guy. It's history reads like a shell company for a reason.
Yet recent research showed Moderna was more effective than Pfizer: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-just-143124782.html
(they're both worthless unless you want to run the risk of developing serious long-term complications).
It's amazing how far both companies are tripping over themselves in the public stage with these experimental death jabs.
Those in the NIH have a patent. They'll profit from Moderna.