Why should i take a vaccine for something that's dangerous to someone else?

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14471594]Tbh you lost me at 621 participant's but can you post the study?[/QUOTE]

[URL]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext[/URL]

[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21;14471589]Why would i take horse paste? The survival rate for healthy people is 99.7% without any type of treatment.

42% efficacy for a vaccine is trash by any standards. I don't think we eradicated any type of diseases with that level of efficacy. Imagine sending your vaccinated kids to school and telling them there is 58% chance that they get polio, small pox and measles :lol[/QUOTE]

Now, what if you tell those same kids that they are unlikely to need hospitalization from polio, smallpox, and measles if they are vaccinated compared to their unvaccinated classmates, who may get a lot sicker if they do get those diseases? Is that vaccine still trash then??

[QUOTE=Rooster;14471601][URL]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext[/URL][/QUOTE]

Ok yeah i remember seeing some stuff on that. The general takeaway from that specific study though was the vaccines aren't effective at significantly reducing the spread [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579068-vaccinated-just-as-likely-to-spread-delta-variant-as-unvaccinated-study%3famp[/url]

Here is a larger one from uk that pretty much has the same takeaway. [url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-people-who-are-fully-vaccinated-have-high-potential-of-spreading-covid/[/url]

Both suggest the vaccinated are slightly less likely to get infected but that it's not significant and that the vaccines aren't useful in significantly reducing the spread which was the point i was making from jump.

This isn't what the government, media has been saying and it's not what most vaccinated people have been saying. They've been saying we have to get everyone vaccinated so we can stop the spread even though the "science" says that's not the case.

So again i'll ask. if the vaccines don't significantly reduce the spread and young people, healthy people and those wirh natural immunity aren't the ones responsible for overwhelming the hospitals why are they mandating these vaccines?

[QUOTE=bladefd;14471603]Now, what if you tell those same kids that they are unlikely to need hospitalization from polio, smallpox, and measles if they are vaccinated compared to their unvaccinated classmates, who may get a lot sicker if they do get those diseases? Is that vaccine still trash then??[/QUOTE]

The vaccines aren't trash bro. Children just aren't at a significant enough risk from covid to warrant mandating them. That's not why the government wants kids vaccinated btw. According to them the purpose of vaccinated children is to significantly reduce the spread but this logic has already been proven illogical by the science That's coming out.

[QUOTE=Rooster;14471599]LMAO Y’all musta forgot. You rolling hard advocating for Ivermectin, your horse paste treatment for Covid brah.

Moderna has 72% efficacy btw but it don’t matter right. Just buy all those natural products that ospteopathic physician like Mercola sell then maybe you’re free from any form of disease. LMAO.

Again what has anti vaccine contributed to the society brah

Pleade enlighten me brah.[/QUOTE]

I think you got me confused with someone else, i never advocated for any horse paste treatment :confusedshrug:

72% is still not good enough. That's like a B- . I like my vaccine A+ grade, you know kinda like the small pox vaccine in middle school where after you got it you could play with any other kids even if they were unvaccinated and you wouldn't have to social distance in fear of catching the disease from them.

[QUOTE=bladefd;14471603]Now, what if you tell those same kids that they are unlikely to need hospitalization from polio, smallpox, and measles if they are vaccinated compared to their unvaccinated classmates, who may get a lot sicker if they do get those diseases? Is that vaccine still trash then??[/QUOTE]

You mean comparing a vaccine that gives you actual immunity (meaning you won't get infected and spread it to others) to a vaccine that will simply lessen your symptoms and doesn't prevent you from spreading it to others? I would say the latter is probably better than nothing but definitely subpar.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14471575]Don't think you read what i was saying. I realize that i can spread the virus but a vaccinated person is just as likely to spreading it also. This is why the mandates make zero sense. Either lock everyone down or don't lock anyone down.[/QUOTE]
A vaccinated person can spread it but if they test positive tho, at least they won't be hospitalized so easily and they'll only need a few days of quarantine to recover from it. And the world can't endure any more prolonged lockdowns because billions of money are lost everyday because of this shit. Take a look at those freaking airlines. A lot of them have become bankrupt or just downscaled last year and those who are left aren't operating at a 100% capacity yet. Same thing for other types of transportation firms, along with restaurants, cinemas, hotels, spas, theme parks, etc. Hoping that everything will open and easen up next year or so as more people become vaccinated at least.

Good question.

The official narrative is that the vaccine will reduce your chances of being hospitalized and dying.

What is the absolute risk reduction in hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated? Anyone know?

[QUOTE=Axe;14471758]A vaccinated person can spread it but if they test positive tho, at least they won't be hospitalized so easily and they'll only need a few days of quarantine to recover from it. And the world can't endure any more prolonged lockdowns because billions of money are lost everyday because of this shit. Take a look at those freaking airlines. A lot of them have become bankrupt or just downscaled last year and those who are left aren't operating at a 100% capacity yet. Same thing for other types of transportation firms, along with restaurants, cinemas, hotels, spas, theme parks, etc. Hoping that everything will open and easen up next year or so as more people become vaccinated at least.[/QUOTE]

Yes i agree it protects the individual who takes it but this isn't significant for everyone. It's not significant for people with natural antibodies. It's not significant for children and it's not significant for healthy young adults. It is significant for older people and unhealthy people. For this reason i don't think they should be mandated.

And i wasn't suggesting they should shut down. Shutting down was just one of the 2 options. My point was we should just get back to life as normal. Better educate people on who should get the vaccine and why. Also educate people on better health and lifestyle choices. Be more transparent and allow for open conversation. Stop demonizing people. If they had of done this from jump just as many people would of got vaccinated. Probably more would have. Alot of "antivaxers" aren't actually anti-vaccine they just don't like the lies or incompetence from the government, cdc and media.

[QUOTE=Cleverness;14471793]Good question.

The official narrative is that the vaccine will reduce your chances of being hospitalized and dying.

What is the absolute risk reduction in hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated? Anyone know?[/QUOTE]

I think it does for alot of people. This is a pandemic of the old and healthy and there's alot of old and unhealthy people out there. I don't think it does for alot of groups though. Children, healthy younger adults and those with natural immunity don't get significant protection from vaccines compared to side effects from it. This is my issue with the mandates. They're trying to vaccinate everyone for a virus that for the most part effects certain groups. It be like trying to make children and healthy young adults take heart medication because lots if older and unhealthy people are dying and being hospitalized due to heart disease. It makes no sense.

[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21;14471709]I think you got me confused with someone else, i never advocated for any horse paste treatment :confusedshrug:

72% is still not good enough. That's like a B- . I like my vaccine A+ grade, you know kinda like the small pox vaccine in middle school where after you got it you could play with any other kids even if they were unvaccinated and you wouldn't have to social distance in fear of catching the disease from them.[/QUOTE]

LMAO so if 72% is caliberated in weeks time and mass produced in a month for emerging variant , is booster justification enough. Or you gonna ignore Moderna efficacy of over 90%, prevent severe illness by 95% and deaths by 100% on Alpha variant. LOL

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14471615]Ok yeah i remember seeing some stuff on that. The general takeaway from that specific study though was the vaccines aren't effective at significantly reducing the spread [URL]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579068-vaccinated-just-as-likely-to-spread-delta-variant-as-unvaccinated-study%3famp[/URL]

Here is a larger one from uk that pretty much has the same takeaway. [URL]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-people-who-are-fully-vaccinated-have-high-potential-of-spreading-covid/[/URL]

Both suggest the vaccinated are slightly less likely to get infected but that it's not significant and that the vaccines aren't useful in significantly reducing the spread which was the point i was making from jump.

This isn't what the government, media has been saying and it's not what most vaccinated people have been saying. They've been saying we have to get everyone vaccinated so we can stop the spread even though the "science" says that's not the case.

So again i'll ask. if the vaccines don't significantly reduce the spread and young people, healthy people and those wirh natural immunity aren't the ones responsible for overwhelming the hospitals why are they mandating these vaccines?[/QUOTE]

Pfizer 92% to 78% is significant effifacy, Astra not so much and those 2 vaccines are primary utilized by UK. It’s the Delta that Pfizer has poor result. If anything the study proved that booster is necessary especially for immunocompromised. The mRNA can be easily produced and calibrated.

Natural immunity works but in order to withstand the test of time, those presumed healthy individuals gonna have to be tested regularly and ideally quarterly antibody testing to confirm their protection dues not wean off. This is not cost effective nor sustainable for the long run Asymptomatic individuals infects the most , the R which is around 3-4 before we even have outbreaks here. Like I said 40% of Americans and at least 10% are elderly , we are not the most ideal nation to take the risk.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23;14472024]I think it does for alot of people. This is a pandemic of the old and healthy and there's alot of old and unhealthy people out there. I don't think it does for alot of groups though. Children, healthy younger adults and those with natural immunity don't get significant protection from vaccines compared to side effects from it. This is my issue with the mandates. They're trying to vaccinate everyone for a virus that for the most part effects certain groups. It be like trying to make children and healthy young adults take heart medication because lots if older and unhealthy people are dying and being hospitalized due to heart disease. It makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

LMAO the data on July to August spikes , hospitalization was mostly over 90% unvaccinated. Kaiser study also validated the vaccines preventing deaths and severe illness. Let me put it this way, Vaccines are not all or nothing solution but it’s the most effective in managing the risk.

[QUOTE=Rooster;14472057]Pfizer 92% to 78% is significant effifacy, Astra not so much and those 2 vaccines are primary utilized by UK. It’s the Delta that Pfizer has poor result. If anything the study proved that booster is necessary especially for immunocompromised. The mRNA can be easily produced and calibrated.

Natural immunity works but in order to withstand the test of time, those presumed healthy individuals gonna have to be tested regularly and ideally quarterly antibody testing to confirm their protection dues not wean off. This is not cost effective nor sustainable for the long run Asymptomatic individuals infects the most , the R which is around 3-4 before we even have outbreaks here. Like I said 40% of Americans and at least 10% are elderly , we are not the most ideal nation to take the risk.[/QUOTE]

It's only delta around though. Aplha is gone.

And the vaccinated that had their jabs don't have to get tested for antibodies even though natural immunity is better?

It should at least be an option and if price is a problem the individual should have an option to pay for their own test.

[QUOTE=Rooster;14472065]LMAO the data on July to August spikes , hospitalization was mostly over 90% unvaccinated. Kaiser study also validated the vaccines preventing deaths and severe illness. Let me put it this way, Vaccines are not all or nothing solution but it’s the most effective in managing the risk.[/QUOTE]

Yes for those who are risk dude that's my point. They coukd just vaccinate those who are high risk and it would yield the same desired outcome. Trying to vaccinate children, healthy young adults and those who have natural immunity are already protected.