Coronavirus

[Red]

lack of proper extensive testing and the actual risk to young healthy children now posed by Covid.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1675

 

[Red]

View: https://twitter.com/tmprowell/status/1583251305316745216

 

[Deleted member 365]

If you weren't so blinded by your narrative you'd easily understand there are massive problems with the conduct of the Pfizer company and the gulf between it's initial claims about their vaccine and the facts emerging about what it did or didn't test for or results released publicly, or actual results of their product. Just the last few weeks it's been shown their anti-viral Covid drug doesn't outperform placebo. They're one of the most corrupt morally reprehensible companies around. You're ok with the fact it now admits it never tested whether the vaccine stopped transmission ??? And continue to keep hidden many of their finanacial details in regards to arrangements with various governments Dangerous ? There are clearly known serious risks even though they are small in number let alone so many unknowns short, medium or long term due to lack of testing. And no i'm not in the "it's gonna kill everyone camp" so shove your "oooh antivaxxer" garbage up your fat ***. So intellectually lazy. It is clearly understood Covid represents little serious risk to young healthy children. Yet you refuse to address these facts. It's kindof bizarre people who pride themselves on being progressive and forward thinking can't assess risk / reward in this scenario and merely try to maintain some weird kind of moral stance on the issue.

not only are you wilfully ignorant you're being an intellectual coward who deliberately misrepresents what others say, and by your own admission don't really care about the facts more about justifying your own preconceived stance And then you refuse to consider anyone else's thoughts and just go for memes and insults. You're better than that. At least i thought you were. Maybe you're not

 

[Deleted member 365]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade1675

At this point, I don’t think these folks are going to be convinced by facts, policies, or science. It’s part of their identity now. Much like politics, they’re bored with regular science and want to be known as “anti-establishment.” I’ve reviewed the last several pages recently to understand why anyone would be anti vax for children given how infectious Covid is, and I’ve seen that the same folks who were anti vax months and months ago remain so no matter what the data says.

Just like politics, Identity, feelings, and the need to be entertained by not being “suckered by the establishment” > facts, evidence, and plain good policy influenced by experts and expertise.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

View: https://twitter.com/tmprowell/status/1583251305316745216

Red, what you are doing here is wrong. You are fear mongering by peddling this misleading propaganda. That story has NOTHING to do with COVID. For all those only reading the tweet or the headline, this is what Red's propaganda piece is really about: "the surge in children's respiratory illnesses, including rhinovirus and enterovirus, continues across the country, one children's hospital is considering installing a field tent to deal with the influx of patients. ... Yale New Haven Children's Hospital, said overall RSV cases seen in the emergency department jumped from 57 last week to 106 currently."

RSV is Respiratory Syncytial Virus. It is the common cold. Rhinovirus and enterovirus are the common cold. As winter approaches, the number of kids coming down with common colds is increasing. That is what this story is about. This is as normal as normal gets, and Red is using this return to normal to push reestablishment of COVID protocols including the reimposition of masking kids in school.

Cold and flu season is a normal thing, and not necessarily a bad thing. From the scientific paper Red linked above: "older children and adults have protective immunity to established viruses because of prior exposures". This season is part of how humans develop their immune system. The return of normal is not a signal that we need to frighten people into reestablishing COVID protocols.

 

[One Brow]

You can shove that phrase up your clacker pal, you should really start thinking critically about this particular "vaccine"

I agree we should think critically about this vaccine. That doesn't excuse you repeating antivax talking points. Your anger-induced rebuttal doesn't excuse it, either.

It beggars belief that this thing is being put on the standard immunisation schedule given the issues with efficacy, safety, lack of proper extensive testing and the actual risk to young healthy children now posed by Covid.

I've asked you to compare the risk profiles of unvaccinated children versus vaccinated children before, and you have so far demurred. Do you have the data to back up this opinion? If not, how is your thinking "critical"?

Countries all throughout Europe and elsewhere are clearly recommending against this for children.

EMA recommends approval of Comirnaty and Spikevax COVID-19 vaccines for children from 6 months age - European Medicines Agency

EMA recommends approval of Comirnaty and Spikevax COVID-19 vaccines for children from 6 months age

www.ema.europa.eu

That page (the very first in the Google feed) says otherwise. What's your source for your claim?

That you of all people are happy to gloss over this is staggering.

I agree there are issues with money in medicine. That doesn't mean every CDC recommendation is primarily about industry profit.

 

[One Brow]

I don’t get it. Why shouldn’t children be vaccinated against Covid?

Covid19 vaccinations do increase the risk of myocarditis in young people, especially young men/boys. Given the lower incidence of covid19 among young people, it's a legitimate question as to whether it is riskier to give them a covid19 injection or to not do so. I have not seen statistics that not giving the injection is less risky.

I do not consider @Douchebag K to be antivax (he says he supports the current vaccine schedule otherwise), and this is a legitimate question he's raising. I am disappointed that he went with the pharma-profit gambit instead of bringing the evidence.

Shouldn’t we want children to get sick less and miss less time at school?

Everything should be weighed in terms of less overall risk for the child in question.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Covid19 vaccinations do increase the risk of myocarditis in young people, especially young men/boys. Given the lower incidence of covid19 among young people, it's a legitimate question as to whether it is riskier to give them a covid19 injection or to not do so. I have not seen statistics that not giving the injection is less risky.

I do not consider @Douchebag K to be antivax (he says he supports the current vaccine schedule otherwise), and this is a legitimate question he's raising. I am disappointed that he went with the pharma-profit gambit instead of bringing the evidence.


Everything should be weighed in terms of less overall risk for the child in question.

According to the CDC, aren’t the risks for young people to get vaccinated lower than the risks of getting sick?

Again, I don’t understand the issue here. Every vaccine has the possibility of side effects. But don’t statistics show that the risk of side effects are significantly lower than the risks of the actual illness? Let’s let data and not our emotions guide policy decisions.

 

[One Brow]

Just the last few weeks it's been shown their anti-viral Covid drug doesn't outperform placebo. They're one of the most corrupt morally reprehensible companies around. You're ok with the fact it now admits it never tested whether the vaccine stopped transmission ??? And continue to keep hidden many of their finanacial details in regards to arrangements with various governments

These are all legitimate points to consider. However, they don't answer the question of whether it is riskier to vaccinate as opposed to not vaccinate.

 

[One Brow]

At this point, I don’t think these folks

I really get tired of your apparent lumping everyone who disagrees with your positions into a single category. Most of @Douchebag K 's posts on the topic present reasonable objections and ask questions that should be answered. I wish I could answer more of them.

 

[One Brow]

According to the CDC, aren’t the risks for young people to get vaccinated lower than the risks of getting sick?

They seem to have made that determination, as has the EU. I see no harm is reasonable questioning of the basis for that determination.0

Let’s let data and not our emotions guide policy decisions.

I agree. I would love to see some experts weigh in on the data.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I really get tired of your apparent lumping everyone who disagrees with your positions into a single category. Most of @Douchebag K 's posts on the topic present reasonable objections and ask questions that should be answered. I wish I could answer more of them.

I don’t believe these are reasonable objections. His objections seem to be the exact same he’s had for over a year no matter what the data says. I get tired of you giving bad faith posters unearned credibility. It’s certainly within your right to do that, as I have a right to not give them undue credibility.