Who should get the new COVID vaccines? What to know about the 2023-2024 shots

[admin]

New COVID vaccines have been approved to guard against coronavirus variants that are currently circulating.

Who should get the new COVID vaccines? What to know about the 2023-2024 shots : Read more

 

[Debed]

Feel free to trust the data https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/

 

[Roj5]

If you don;t want the vaccine, don;t have it... If you want it, have it...

It should be of no concern to you what my personal decisions are within law and/ or correct treatment of others including but not limited to humans.

 

[Debed]

If you don;t want the vaccine, don;t have it... If you want it, have it...

It should be of no concern to you what my personal decisions are within law and/ or correct treatment of others including but not limited to humans.

Is it not better to make an informed decision?
There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..

 

[Roj5]

Is it not better to make an informed decision?
There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..

I've looked into the pros and cons and my decision is personal to an individual as it should be to all individuals as to whether they wish to have the vaccine or not have the vaccine... It is not right for others to sway the population on a one-to-one basis.

 

[SHaines]

Feel free to trust the data https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/

Be sure to read the disclaimer on the site you linked.

"The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."

Just because a paper was published and stored here, doesn't mean it's verifiably accurate.

Is it not better to make an informed decision?
There is plenty of warnings regarding tobacco smoking, so you can not claim ignorance if you chose to smoke.
There are studies of the vaccine, but they are not illuminated so that you can make an informed choice.
Whether you take the vaccine or not, is your problem, not mine.
My pet peeve is the lack of transparency on the available information..

Can you clarify what you're asking here? There is a metric ton of support from scientists globally about the efficacy of vaccines. Your argument is that because people exist that doubt the science, the question is unresolved?

What transparency exactly are you looking for? What piece of the puzzle do you believe is missing, specifically?

 

[Debed]

Be sure to read the disclaimer on the site you linked.

"The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."

Just because a paper was published and stored here, doesn't mean it's verifiably accurate.



Can you clarify what you're asking here? There is a metric ton of support from scientists globally about the efficacy of vaccines. Your argument is that because people exist that doubt the science, the question is unresolved?

What transparency exactly are you looking for? What piece of the puzzle do you believe is missing, specifically?

The disclaimer simply states that while documents seems to correspond with the research, it does not imply that they (NIH, NLM etc.) have endorsed it publicly.
Quite common to put such disclaimers, so I fail to see how you somehow manage to arrive at the wrong train station in regard to your thought processing.

There is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence supporting Albert Einstein’s GR. But scientists still conduct experiments in the hopes of finding a crack they can wedge open.
And if that so happens one day, that «one person» would not be told that she/he is wrong, because there is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence saying that GR is right.
The person would instead be lauded and get a nobel prize in physics.
So consensus in science does not work. Facts do not care about consensus.

So, you say there is a lot of support from scientists regarding the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine.
I would not really say that a ~0.84% (Yes, that is indeed a zero at the front there) efficency is much to write home about.
But feel free to disprove it.

 

[SHaines]

The disclaimer simply states that while documents seems to correspond with the research, it does not imply that they (NIH, NLM etc.) have endorsed it publicly.
Quite common to put such disclaimers, so I fail to see how you somehow manage to arrive at the wrong train station in regard to your thought processing.

There is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence supporting Albert Einstein’s GR. But scientists still conduct experiments in the hopes of finding a crack they can wedge open.
And if that so happens one day, that «one person» would not be told that she/he is wrong, because there is a »metric ton» of empirical evidence saying that GR is right.
The person would instead be lauded and get a nobel prize in physics.
So consensus in science does not work. Facts do not care about consensus.

So, you say there is a lot of support from scientists regarding the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine.
I would not really say that a ~0.84% (Yes, that is indeed a zero at the front there) efficency is much to write home about.
But feel free to disprove it.

It's important not to come to a conclusion, then try to dig up supporting evidence after the fact. This isn't a thread on general relativity, but just to close that door, general relativity is a theory. What vast quantities of empirical evidence prove the theory correct?

If it's been proven correct, why is it a theory? The answer is, it's a theory because it hasn't been proven. We've tested many aspects of it and have found many tests have indicated it could be true, but the theory of general relativity isn't in any way correlated with the science behind vaccines.

Please avoid derailing discussions just to try to inject some other topic where you might feel more comfortable.

What is the specific source for your claim of ~0.84% vaccine efficacy? Is that for this specific vaccine, or all vaccines in the world? People like to feel informed by quoting numbers, but all that matters is where the number comes from and how it was derived. Context is everything, so please avoid making claims and citing random numbers without providing any additional context (I've added the link to the CDC numbers in my previous comment, for reference).

 

[Debed]

So you admit that you have never seen or heard any of the media quote said number then.
Which basically proves my point.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

See the date. Media had access to it, yet it was never mentioned that the efficency of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was a measly 0.84%.
Instead the media said it was 90% effective, they forgot to mention that the vaccine was 90% more effective than the human immune system, which was/is ~0.43% effective.
Why wasn’t the media transparent on this?