COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Sua Sponte]

Pfizer #2 yesterday. No side effect other than a sore arm like #1 gave me. The 5G reception has improved though.

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, ecugringo said:

Just had a call with our Canadian office.  Canada is shutting down again.

 

Read an article last night how Russia was trying to take advantage of the situation in the EU and push the Sputnik vaccine.  Not sure how true this is but interesting.

Also have a buddy in Malaysia that handles the Asia-Pac region for my company.  No vaccines yet, unknown when it will happen.

It's true. Germany is in talks to acquire Sputnik by early Summer. 

 

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

It's true. Germany is in talks to acquire Sputnik by early Summer. 

 

They’re also receiving shots of J&J, due to Moderna not providing enough.

[jazzdude]

They’re also receiving shots of J&J, due to Moderna not providing enough.

And AstraZeneca as well

[kaputt]

Got the J&J shot yesterday.
 

Nothing crazy happened. Arm feels the same as getting a flu shot and no other response other than maybe a little extra tired last night. 

[StoleIt]

Had a nice 13 hour sleep session the day after my Moderna #2. And a sore arm.

Otherwise nothing crazy.

[pawnman]

1st Pfizer shot down.  Arm is a little sore, no other effects.  

Dreaming that Bill Gates is the president is totally normal, right?

[tac airlifter]

Carlson on vaccine questions

I understand Tucker Carlson is a commentator who thrives on controversy.  I’m not linking this because of an affinity for him, but rather he’s the only one discussing a topic I can’t get a straight answer on: does the vaccine work?  If so, why no alleviating restrictions for vaccinated?  If not, why the massive guilt campaign to compel vaccination?  

[glockenspiel]

.... J&J stopped. Whoops. 

Edited April 14, 2021 by glockenspiel

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

.... J&J stopped. Whoops. 

Over 6 people in millions.

We'd halt all airline travel if we applied the same safety standards. 

 

[glockenspiel]

I love the BB!

What is your threshold of a serious adverse events? 
 

And is there precedent for holding the drug companies responsible for said events with EUA drugs? — I’ll answer that one, No. 

[Breckey]

1-2 per a million is a small enough sample size to be statistically insignificant. Given the sample sizes for the testing it is unlikely they would have caught it even if it wasn't EUA.

[tac airlifter]

29 minutes ago, Breckey said:

1-2 per a million is a small enough sample size to be statistically insignificant.

Agreed.  Which leaves only two possibilities: either Fauci/CDC are absurdly risk adverse (further casting doubt on their judgement) or they are not letting us see the real numbers (demonstrating themselves untrustworthy).  There’s no good outcome for the “experts” here.

I am curious if the same standard applied to C19 deaths is being applied to C19 adverse vaccine reactions. 
 

ETA: speaking of statistically insignificant numbers driving illogical policy changes... the drive against “assault weapons” is mathematically analogous.

Edited April 14, 2021 by tac airlifter

[BashiChuni]

Funny how fauci ignores other statistics and refuses any sound risk management decisions such as eating in a fucking restaurant AFTER fully vaccinated. 
 

CDC/fauci have zero credibility 

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

I love the BB!

What is your threshold of a serious adverse events? 
 

And is there precedent for holding the drug companies responsible for said events with EUA drugs? — I’ll answer that one, No. 

I don't know if I could give you an exact number for my threshold...but it's definitely above the number that halted the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines.

As an entering argument, I'd say if the vaccine has an adverse reaction rate lower than the fatality rate of the disease it protects against, that's probably a net win.

[VMFA187]

10 hours ago, pawnman said:

As an entering argument, I'd say if the vaccine has an adverse reaction rate lower than the fatality rate of the disease it protects against, that's probably a net win.

100% disagree. Let's just say .25% of people who caught covid died, so 25 out of 10,000 which I think is much higher than the actual fatality rate. Most of those are older people and people who have health issues, many of which were self-caused due to a variety of reasons. 

So you feel it would be better to have .24%, or 24 out of 10,000 to have adverse reactions to a vaccine they very likely don't even need, potentially causing harm to those young, healthy adults and children?

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

100% disagree. Let's just say .25% of people who caught covid died, so 25 out of 10,000 which I think is much higher than the actual fatality rate. Most of those are older people and people who have health issues, many of which were self-caused due to a variety of reasons. 

So you feel it would be better to have .24%, or 24 out of 10,000 to have adverse reactions to a vaccine they very likely don't even need, potentially causing harm to those young, healthy adults and children?

A better system is to approximate years of life saved. The average age of people dieing from COVID is only a year and a half less than the average life expectancy in the US. Hence you can estimate 10 COVID deaths cost about 15 years of life/productivity in society. 

If a vaccine causes a 30 year old to develop blood clots and die, that cost just over 45 years of life and useful contributions that person would have made to society. 3X more than the  ten COVID deaths. Hence, bar napkin math'ing here, the vaccine needs to be at least 30X safer than the disease. 

That's the utilitarian moral argument. There are others as well: for example, many would say because older people have already made a great contribution to society, we owe it to them to make sacrifices and protect them. The nuanced question here is who's life has more value?

[MCO]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

The nuanced question here is who's life has more value?

It seems like the answer for most Americans when it comes to all COVID decisions is “my families and mine”.

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

100% disagree. Let's just say .25% of people who caught covid died, so 25 out of 10,000 which I think is much higher than the actual fatality rate. Most of those are older people and people who have health issues, many of which were self-caused due to a variety of reasons. 

So you feel it would be better to have .24%, or 24 out of 10,000 to have adverse reactions to a vaccine they very likely don't even need, potentially causing harm to those young, healthy adults and children?

Until we start forcing people to take the vaccine at gunpoint...yeah, let's keep vaccines that save more lives than they take available to the public. 

Not to mention pulling a vaccine due to six total cases of adverse reactions inspires a whole new level of fear in medical science. 

[Prosuper]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

Not to mention pulling a vaccine due to six total cases of adverse reactions inspires a whole new level of fear in medical science. 

Well they do call it the "practice" of medicine and not science. The polio vaccine took over 30 years to be developed. Myself I have both shots of the Moderna , besides nausea when first taken I have had no other side affects since 25/03. The Lord willing and the river doesn't rise. With 23 years on active duty I also have a 4 page shot record to include anthrax and small pox. 

 

[BashiChuni]

47 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

With 23 years on active duty I also have a 4 page shot record to include anthrax and small pox. 

 

thank you for your service

[Tank]

[1:1:1]

Funny how if you criticize the policy on mask wear the response you receive is "Are you a doctor?!?" But criticizing the CDC and FDA on the pause in J&J vaccinations requires no such expertise.

[pawnman]

44 minutes ago, 1:1:1 said:

Funny how if you criticize the policy on mask wear the response you receive is "Are you a doctor?!?" But criticizing the CDC and FDA on the pause in J&J vaccinations requires no such expertise.

Because if you have a basic grasp of statistics, you can see what the data says. 

[1:1:1]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Because if you have a basic grasp of statistics, you can see what the data says. 

Too bad no one at the FDA has a grasp of statistics. Hopefully Lord Fauci can weigh in so I'll know what to think.