That is an absurd comparison.  Children getting an education benefits society.  It's good for everybody.  People choosing not to get vaccinated is not a benefit to society; it's a serious detriment.  It puts an enormous strain on our health care system.  A persion who chooses not to get vaccinated is 30 times more likely, than a vaccinated person, to wind up in the hospital running up a huge hospital bill.  

It is completely unfair to ask vaccinated people to pay for the unvaccinated people's hospital bills, especially now that everyone knows that if you get vaccinated, even if you get Covid, it is extremely unlikely that you will wind up in the hospital.   

I'll pay for public schools.  But I don't want to subsidize anyone's hospital bill who could have avoided going to the hospital by getting vaccinated.  You chose your path.  Don't ask me to pay for it.  At this point, it's on you.

Just to be clear based on your last paragraph, you are cool subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-indiced diabetics? I will assume you are not cool with it.

Where was this train of thought 6 months ago before FDA approval by the way?

I am not cool with subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-induced diabetics.  

I don't understand your question about FDA approval.

---

Just to be clear based on your last paragraph, you are cool subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-indiced diabetics? I will assume you are not cool with it.

Where was this train of thought 6 months ago before FDA approval by the way?

I am not cool with subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-induced diabetics.  

I don't understand your reference to FDA approval.

I'm seeing a rise in the "I don't want to subsidize the unvaxxed" in the twittersphere since FDA approval. Just didn't see much of it before.

---

I am not cool with subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-induced diabetics.  

I don't understand your reference to FDA approval.

I'm seeing a rise in the "I don't want to subsidize the unvaxxed" in the twittersphere since FDA approval. Just didn't see much of it before.

That mattered to a lot of people who didn't understand the difference between the EUA and FDA approval. I've had several relatives tell me they were much more comfortable now that it's approved, and now they want to encourage others to do the same. Of course the fact that a few people we know have passed on in the last 10 days makes a difference too.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I am not cool with subsidizing treatment for smokers and self-induced diabetics.  

I don't understand your reference to FDA approval.

I'm seeing a rise in the "I don't want to subsidize the unvaxxed" in the twittersphere since FDA approval. Just didn't see much of it before.

I think the "I don't want to subsidize the unvaxxed" sentiment has risen lately because of the steadily mounting evidence that vaccinations keep people out of the hospital.  And the fact that the overwhelming majority of people hospitalized with Covid, some say it's 97% or more, are unvaccinated.  And as the hospitals are overwhelmed with unvaccinated Covid patients, after a while the vaccinated people start to lose patience with people who refuse to get vaccinated.  People see interviews with doctors and nurses who are at the breaking point because of the work load, and they say, "What is wrong with these people?  Why don't they just get vaccinated so they don't wind up in the hospital?"  

I don't want to subsidize some incredibly stupid and irresponsible person's hospital stay.   The vaccine is free and easy to get.  Any risk from the vaccine is miniscule compared to the risk people run getting Covid.

---

Anti-vaxxers for COVID won't get a highly researched and safe vaccination, but they'll take horse medicine. 
Morons. 


Ivermectin flying off Jacksonville feed store’s shelves (news4jax.com)

---

Getting my 2nd dose in a couple hours.. My superpowers will be ascending into full force soon.

---

Getting my 2nd dose in a couple hours.. My superpowers will be ascending into full force soon.

You're not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot. 

---

Getting my 2nd dose in a couple hours.. My superpowers will be ascending into full force soon.

You're not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot. 

Then time for the booster.

---

You're not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot. 

Then time for the booster.

There's options.

---

Getting my 2nd dose in a couple hours.. My superpowers will be ascending into full force soon.

You're not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after the second shot. 

Yea I know, 2 weeks will be here before you know it. Still plan on wearing a mask when out and about in crowds etc, even after 2 weeks. People try and make such a big deal about wearing one and it's pathetic. Karens always got to complain about the tiniest of things though.

I haven't had a single cold, or been sick since this entire pandemic started *knocks on wood* and I know that the mask, distancing and general precautions as far as sanitizer/plenty of hand washing is the reason why.

---

Targeting people for known and tested diseases is not the same as targeting people for something they don't currently have and may never get. That's like charging someone for a crime they're likely to commit due to a "profile" he or she fits.

You don't treat someone for cancer just because it runs in the family. You take preventive measures like mammograms or prostate exams and if anything shows up then you treat it. Not everyone who gets Covid ends up in the hospital. Not by a long shot. I can tell you about 30 people right off the top of my head I personally know who have had it and never had to go to the hospital not to mention anyone here. So punishing people monetarily for something that might happen is BS.

I really think you understand the concepts of actuarial science better than this, insurance costs are based on a risk calculation and the premium reflects your risk. If you choose not to get a vaccine to protect you from a serious health event then you choose to accept a larger health insurance premium. It's a preventative measure not different from that mammogram you mentioned. But you are missing the biggest issue here though, since you don't pay for it you don't get a say. The simple fact is that as long as the employer has a financial interest in your health they they are within their rights to act in that interest and you have the option to get the shot, pay the higher premium, or just get your own policy.

Then my choice is to get my own policy. I am not anti-vaxx. My decision is a personal one based on my medical history. That's it. I don't care what other people decide for themselves but I do care when those decisions, very personal decisions, are taken away.

---

Again, that's not the point. I am not and have not said that we are currently experiencing ADE as a result of a coronavirus or it's vaccine. You have stated that multiple times in response to me, and it's moot. I am saying and have been saying that there is a potential FUTURE risk from this vaccine and possibly the virus itself, and society as a whole is not being informed about it. To make it worse, if they do know about it, are otherwise healthy and in a low risk demographic, they are being maligned for not taking the vaccine. 

IF ADE occurs, it will probably manifest in the form of attacking those with healthy immune systems. So, we are taking a low risk group, giving them a vaccine they most likely don't need, then hoping a mutation doesn't occurs that triggers ADE, which will make people with healthy immune systems the high risk group. Does that sound smart to you? You have zero evidence to say that ADE won't occur, only that it hasn't happened yet. Great. We're just over a year into a novel (probably man-made) virus, that has already mutated into 8 different recognized variants. The people who are at low risk from dying should not be taking this vaccine if they don't want to. 

Neither the companies nor the government should be mandating it. It doesn't limit the spread of corona or it's variants. It doesn't give lifetime immunity. It doesn't keep them from getting sick. All it does is keep people from getting as sick, which is great in the short term, but maybe not as great in the future. EVERY single study is showing natural immunity to be superior to vaccinated immunity. So, even if people get less sick, they are going to need another dose shortly. What happens when they don't get their booster? Are they going to get more sick from the virus? We don't know, because we haven't done any long-term research. 

So why are we doing a global rollout of this thing again? Why aren't you being more critical of the future cost? Why aren't people being informed of this? Why are they trying to give this things to kids and young adults when it increases their chance of myocarditis? The only answer that jives with all of this is it makes people money. I may be wrong here, but I doubt it. 

I can appreciate you guys who are confident nothing will come of this vaccine, but it's not based on reasoning. It's based on faith. Nothing happening in this moment is an adequate defense of FUTURE complications from this thing. Every scientist in the know will tell you there is a risk of ADE an none of them know if it will occur or not. Some of this doubt can be reduced through long-term monitoring, but we aren't there yet. We should get at least a couple seasons of this to get models for how Covid is mutating before giving this thing to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in this country.

It's not moot, it's a fact.

1. With the variants we've seen and the design of the vaccines intending to prevent it and the millions of doses already given over the last 8 months, any issues with ADE would've already emerged.

2. Do you know how many deaths occurred in the previous large scale ADE events? How many died in the measles event? The RSV event? How many 50 YEARS later in the Dengue event?  The most was Dengue with 14 out of the 800,000 doses given and that was enough to pull the vaccine from use. 

3. And you keep saying they don't need it and yet our hospitals are still full. Our CCUs are still venting people daily. We are still charging up a care debt of treatment that we will pay in the future as thousands upon thousands of procedures and treatments have been delayed. And these people are OVERWHELMINGLY the unvaccinated, more than 95% of whom would NOT be in that situation if they'd taken the vaccine. So yeah, they should be maligned for not taking the vaccine because their stubbornness is costing us lives and dollars to fix the mess.

1. This is not true in any capacity. I've talked about this before: The makers of the vaccine went out of their way to avoid ADE, so that's a point in their favor. However, they are also on record stating that if the virus mutates in the wrong way, it could cause problems down the line. You have no way of knowing how it's going to mutate. Additionally, you don't get to make a claim about it's mutations based on the 8 variants we've seen thus far in only 8 short months. I'm open to data that supports your position, but I don't think it exists. Don't quote one guy or the CDC, because they have been wrong too much to trust. I will respond in kind by not saying your wrong based on one claim. The truth is we don't know, so it would be proper of you to walk back your assertion. 

2. Cool. You're giving me something to work with here. I am not familiar with the ADE numbers of those vaccines, but I'll look into it. But, to your point, the Dengue vaccine was designed to help with ADE, because the virus was already causing ADE on it's own. I'll look into it, but at first glance, it comes across like you don't know what you're talking about. Regardless, don't you find it odd that they'll pull a vaccine with those numbers, after a 50 year history, but we are doing a global rollout for this one with only 10 months of observation in humans? Medicine used to be cautious and calculating, and I don't feel like we are taking the WISEST approach. Will this vaccine save lives short term? Absolutely. I don't doubt it. That's not my concern. I am concerned for the future.

3. I have never said we don't need it. I said we need to strongly recommend it for the elderly and at risk... you know the people who are actually dying from Covid. Don't twist my position on this. I am saying the young and healthy don't "need" it. This is not to say they aren't getting sick or dying. They are. I just can't really compare the numbers because, no one is providing solid data to look at anymore. I have no way of making a distinction because our approach to classifying deaths is terrible. How many comorbidities exist among those who are dying? What's the average age? What percentage of those deaths are from delta or any other variant? When this first started, it was easy to look at the numbers and assess risk. Now the CDC puts out a risk percentage using the 18-29 bracket as it's base. That is hardly a great measuring tool. 

However, let's take a look at what we do know. Roughly 30,000 adults under the age of 50 have died from Covid in a population of 350 million. That is a REALLY small number, relatively speaking, to begin with. I have zero way of knowing how many of those have comorbidities (because it's not recorded), but I can be confident that it's a decent amount. Even assuming most of these people were 100% healthy (which is highly unlikely), .00014% of the population has died from Covid. That is not the great threat it's made out to be. Even still, I concede that it does put a strain on the hospitals, but I think they can adapt once we get a few seasons under our belt. I do think at risk people should be taking the vaccine. I am open to volunteers taking it as well. I am just asking for the medical community to tread with caution. Their stance on the vaccine is group think. Not cautious, scientific principles.

---

New studies coming out showing broad and effective immunity in convalescent patients. Finding t-cells targeting multiple covid proteins. Who knew? Oh, that's right.... this guy.

---

FSG, can you at least concede that the data is overwhelmingly suggesting that natural immunity is superior to the vaccine. And, if you can agree to that, then tell me why the CDC is still recommending convalescent patients take the vaccine. This single issue is probably the one that made me the most suspicious of the vaccination policy. It reeks of a money grab.

---

FSG, can you at least concede that the data is overwhelmingly suggesting that natural immunity is superior to the vaccine. And, if you can agree to that, then tell me why the CDC is still recommending convalescent patients take the vaccine. This single issue is probably the one that made me the most suspicious of the vaccination policy. It reeks of a money grab.

Those who have had Covid and do not get the vaccine are 2.34 times more likely to suffer reinfection than those who do. No one is contesting that the highest level of protection is afforded by having both, that's why.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

I don't contest that natural immunity is the superior mechanism, but for those who are relying on contracting natural immunity, the body count for doing so far exceeds that of a vaccination campaign.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm seeing a rise in the "I don't want to subsidize the unvaxxed" in the twittersphere since FDA approval. Just didn't see much of it before.

That mattered to a lot of people who didn't understand the difference between the EUA and FDA approval. I've had several relatives tell me they were much more comfortable now that it's approved, and now they want to encourage others to do the same. Of course the fact that a few people we know have passed on in the last 10 days makes a difference too.

Where do you get the shot that is FDA approved? The approved one doesn't exist and isn't manufactured yet.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

That mattered to a lot of people who didn't understand the difference between the EUA and FDA approval. I've had several relatives tell me they were much more comfortable now that it's approved, and now they want to encourage others to do the same. Of course the fact that a few people we know have passed on in the last 10 days makes a difference too.

Where do you get the shot that is FDA approved? The approved one doesn't exist and isn't manufactured yet.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Oh for deity's sake, they put a brand name on it. The chemical composition is the same, quit listening to stupid people.

Fact Sheet: https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

Relevant text: The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

FSG, can you at least concede that the data is overwhelmingly suggesting that natural immunity is superior to the vaccine. And, if you can agree to that, then tell me why the CDC is still recommending convalescent patients take the vaccine. This single issue is probably the one that made me the most suspicious of the vaccination policy. It reeks of a money grab.

Those who have had Covid and do not get the vaccine are 2.34 times more likely to suffer reinfection than those who do. No one is contesting that the highest level of protection is afforded by having both, that's why.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

I don't contest that natural immunity is the superior mechanism, but for those who are relying on contracting natural immunity, the body count for doing so far exceeds that of a vaccination campaign.

I told you. I don't trust the CDC. It's not because I'm some anti-government nutbag, either. It's because they are the only institution in the world coming up with numbers like that. Every other study I've read has shown a VERY slight margin of difference between the vaccinated and convalescent patients, which makes sense because there is almost certainly a VERY small percent of convalescent patients who were false positives, but the difference is practically negligible. The CDC's findings don't fit with the rest of the data. I have already looked into this study before you posted it, and I don't think it's very good. When you break it down, it's suspect.

Here's a video of a pro-vaccine doctor (who, full disclosure, also thinks highly of Ivermectin), explaining the problems with the study. Are you going to take the time to watch a 30 minute video? TLDR: There's some mathematic gymnastics going on to get those numbers. 

CDC Kentucky Study

---

Where do you get the shot that is FDA approved? The approved one doesn't exist and isn't manufactured yet.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Oh for diety's sake, they put a brand name on it. The chemical composition is the same, quit listening to stupid people.

Fact Sheet: https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

Relevant text: The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.

So both will make people susceptible to government control radio waves. Got it.

---

So, let me break down my biggest problems with the study, because no one is probably going to watch the video. The study looked at people who were infected in 2020 up until December. Then it tried to find people who were reinfected between May and June. They found 50 people who were vaccinated, and 179 who were not, and used those numbers to get your 2.34X more likely to get the virus.

• None of these patients were likely to have the Delta variant at this time, but we don't know, because they didn't test for variants.
  
• They didn't give us a breakdown of age range or risk group.
  
• The study was entirely voluntary, meaning the people had to get the PCR test of their own accord. It did not consider whether people or their health care providers might not have been as quick to test those who were vaccinated.
  
• It doesn't take into account that the vaccine temporarily increased antibodies in patients. When you consider the close proximity to when they would have had access to the vaccine vs when they did the study, it makes sense that the vaccinated would have a temporarily boosted immune system. Key word: temporary
  
• It doesn't consider those who were vaccinated out of state
  
• It was unable to confirm if these people were actually the same patients, since it just used first and last name. 
  

These are big deals, dude. The CDC has SO much access to data, and they use this small handful of people to make the case for vaccinations for everyone? That doesn't make any sense.

---