Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get what the big deal is with people opposed to getting the vaccine. Seriously, what is your problem?

The issue is with college kids. Many have had three and four doses already, as well as having had covid once or twice. That's a lot of doses/exposure for healthy kids who face almost no risk of serious outcomes from covid and are most susceptible to the small risks of myocarditis post-vaccine. However, even with all these prior doses/exposures, some colleges may now switch to requiring the bivalent given the change in the FDA's recommendations and it's unclear whether they might also require a combined covid/flu vaccine if it's released later in the fall. The way colleges have implemented these requirements is also odd. Some have required booster/bivalent for students but only recommended them for faculty and staff, even though covid risks rise with age.

We get flu shots every year. No big deal.

Covid shot is not the flu shot. Just as a haircut is not a heart transplant. The flu shot is simple, harmless and based on proven technology. The Covid shot is experimental with identifiable serious side effects and an injury profile. Just because both are “shots” doesn’t mean both are the same. I never woke up in the middle of the night in excruciating pain after getting a flu shot.

BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

But it’s very unclear if it reduces transmissibility in any meaningful way, hence there is no basis at all to mandate it. Even if it did reduce transmissibility, the risk of vaccine injury renders it unsuitable for mandates (as opposed to more harmless traditional vaccines)

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron

According to this study in California prisons, within 5 weeks of a vaccine shot a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection is 28% likely to transmit the virus vs 36% for an unvaccinated person.

I would say that local area circumstances should dictate policy, if say a city was on its knees with the hospital emergency rooms and ICUs blocked with serious ply I’ll covid positive patients then the difference between 28 and 36% is consequential and the colleges would be reason to mandate but in a low risk area the mandate won’t be worth the effort.

Three years ago, 36% was not even sufficient for authorization - per the government's original statements, the bar was 50% for authorization. The bar was lowered later.

There is a long, long way from authorization to recommendation and then to mandate a product. A temporary and miniscule decrease in infection over a few months is nowhere near what would support the ethics of a mandate. Nowhere even close to the ballpark. (For those wondering, prior to covid, flu shots were generally not mandated by colleges due to low efficacy as well, and health care worker mandates for flu - which will continue - similarly violate medical ethics.)

Anonymous wrote:
A lot of elderly people live with their adult children though especially in poor and POC households. There was a lot of coverage of care home deaths but an elderly person who lived in a home with multiple k-12 kids or adults with high risk in person essential service jobs where likely equally at risk.

Then those kids can get vaccinated. Why should other kids have to take a risk for someone else's situation?

Anonymous wrote:
Biden isn’t an infectious disease expert. As a heath care worker I was fully vaccinated before New Years Eve 2020 and the person who gave me the jab told me the statistical risk reduction BUT that there was still a risk so keep masking.

And yet he still made the claim.

Biden isn’t an infectious disease expert. As a heath care worker I was fully vaccinated before New Years Eve 2020 and the person who gave me the jab told me the statistical risk reduction BUT that there was still a risk so keep masking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

Not true.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/amp/

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-46a270ce0f681caa7e4143e2ae9a0211

Biden DID claim vaccinated people were 100% protected. Your quote above "The vaccine was never claimed..." is false

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

But it’s very unclear if it reduces transmissibility in any meaningful way, hence there is no basis at all to mandate it. Even if it did reduce transmissibility, the risk of vaccine injury renders it unsuitable for mandates (as opposed to more harmless traditional vaccines)

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron

According to this study in California prisons, within 5 weeks of a vaccine shot a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection is 28% likely to transmit the virus vs 36% for an unvaccinated person.

I would say that local area circumstances should dictate policy, if say a city was on its knees with the hospital emergency rooms and ICUs blocked with serious ply I’ll covid positive patients then the difference between 28 and 36% is consequential and the colleges would be reason to mandate but in a low risk area the mandate won’t be worth the effort.

A booster's potential ability to reduce infection/symptomatic illness is short-lived. You can't keep boosting people over and over within short periods of time. This is from Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and member of the FDA Advisory Panel on covid vaccines.
https://pauloffit.substack.com/p/do-we-still-need-covid-vaccine-mandates?publication_id=1530624&isFreemail=true

"So, why do some universities still require their students to be boosted?
If university administrators believe that a bivalent booster dose will provide better protection against severe disease, they should be reassured that three doses of a COVID vaccine or two doses plus a natural COVID infection likely provides long-lived protection against severe disease. At this point, those who are young and healthy don’t appear to need another booster dose.
If administrators are trying to prevent all symptomatic illness for students living in dormitories, they should realize that protection against mild illness afforded by a booster dose will likely last only a few months. Trying to protect against all symptomatic illness would require frequent booster dosing, which is not a viable public health strategy.
All vaccines have risks. While it is reasonable for colleges or universities to offer booster dosing to those who want it, it is unreasonable to mandate booster dosing for students who are already protected against serious illness unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. And in this case, the benefits are, at best, marginal."

A lot of elderly people live with their adult children though especially in poor and POC households. There was a lot of coverage of care home deaths but an elderly person who lived in a home with multiple k-12 kids or adults with high risk in person essential service jobs where likely equally at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately we are starting to see the deaths of faculty who have had covd multiple times, likely having contracted itbfrom.students in large lecture halls etc. I also have several colleagues who are either ill.or cognitively impaired and retiring early. It's not really fair to keep.exposing teachers and faculty to multiple.rounds of covid either

How can you know whether these deaths are from covid or from the vaccine? Seriously. How?! Why would people who get the vax so many times get covd so many times?! At some point you have to start questioning the treatment.

The thing is, people who question it out loud get censored. So, people only see one opinion, and then they get manipulated into thinking that they must be maga for questioning the obvious, so they keep their rational opinions to themselves for fear of being viewed as a pariah. We've all been mindf**kd.

Early in there was a group of scientists, with solid credentials who came together and questioned some of the public health policies with regards to school shutdowns. They lobbied for ‘focused protection’. They were systematically shut down by the media and censored.

That is NOT how science works. Science should allow for debate and discussion. The censorship was appalling and terrifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately we are starting to see the deaths of faculty who have had covd multiple times, likely having contracted itbfrom.students in large lecture halls etc. I also have several colleagues who are either ill.or cognitively impaired and retiring early. It's not really fair to keep.exposing teachers and faculty to multiple.rounds of covid either

How can you know whether these deaths are from covid or from the vaccine? Seriously. How?! Why would people who get the vax so many times get covd so many times?! At some point you have to start questioning the treatment.

The thing is, people who question it out loud get censored. So, people only see one opinion, and then they get manipulated into thinking that they must be maga for questioning the obvious, so they keep their rational opinions to themselves for fear of being viewed as a pariah. We've all been mindf**kd.

People seem to forget that it was Trump who fast-tracked and pushed the vx. It was some real mindf**kery to get people to turn it around in their minds to think that rationally questioning a hastily-made therapeutic made them flaming maga sheep.

It’s amazing. It’s truly like the book 1984. The media can get the public to believe anything, even if it directly contradicts what they told you yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

But it’s very unclear if it reduces transmissibility in any meaningful way, hence there is no basis at all to mandate it. Even if it did reduce transmissibility, the risk of vaccine injury renders it unsuitable for mandates (as opposed to more harmless traditional vaccines)

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron

According to this study in California prisons, within 5 weeks of a vaccine shot a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection is 28% likely to transmit the virus vs 36% for an unvaccinated person.

I would say that local area circumstances should dictate policy, if say a city was on its knees with the hospital emergency rooms and ICUs blocked with serious ply I’ll covid positive patients then the difference between 28 and 36% is consequential and the colleges would be reason to mandate but in a low risk area the mandate won’t be worth the effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately we are starting to see the deaths of faculty who have had covd multiple times, likely having contracted itbfrom.students in large lecture halls etc. I also have several colleagues who are either ill.or cognitively impaired and retiring early. It's not really fair to keep.exposing teachers and faculty to multiple.rounds of covid either

How can you know whether these deaths are from covid or from the vaccine? Seriously. How?! Why would people who get the vax so many times get covd so many times?! At some point you have to start questioning the treatment.

The thing is, people who question it out loud get censored. So, people only see one opinion, and then they get manipulated into thinking that they must be maga for questioning the obvious, so they keep their rational opinions to themselves for fear of being viewed as a pariah. We've all been mindf**kd.

People seem to forget that it was Trump who fast-tracked and pushed the vx. It was some real mindf**kery to get people to turn it around in their minds to think that rationally questioning a hastily-made therapeutic made them flaming maga sheep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no control over whether your non-minor child gets vaccinated

You've said this exact same thing, verbatim, in another thread a couple months ago.

Why do you think that ALL college students want to get the vax but their parents are against it? IME (as a parent of college students) that is definitely not the case.

DP College students want to be able to graduate, at their original school, with their original classmates. At some schools, that can only happen if they take the required covid vaccines/boosters. Otherwise, the options are transferring or taking a year off and waiting to see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

Not true.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/amp/

Anonymous wrote:
The vaccine was never claimed to be 100% effective at preventing someone from catching covid. Its purpose is to reduce the seriousness of the outcome ( mild case requiring only self care vs hospitalisation vs death) and reduce transmissibility.

This is middle school level biology lol.

Not true.