Have you or will you get the vaccine?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by FreshAir, Oct 22, 2021.

?

Have you or do you plan to get the vaccine

  1. Yes

    75.0%
  2. No

    25.0%
  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    BINGO. Well said!

    If you give up your freedom to make your own medical decisions, then what freedom DO you have?
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not risking jab-induced myocarditis (or other side effects) by getting a COVID jab. No thank you. I am a perfectly healthy person with a very well functioning immune system, and I intend to keep it that way.

    Additionally, are you even aware of how the USA "came to be" in the first place?? Oh, that's right... from a group of people risking their lives and long term health for a political stand.

    F Democrat tyranny.
     
    submarinepainter likes this.
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    even if what you said was true, I can not use your body to keep me alive, and if you disconnect me charge you with murder, neither can a fetus
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
    Bowerbird and Cosmo like this.
  4. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,333
    Likes Received:
    10,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You know it's your own immune system reaction that kills you half the time with Covid.

    Good luck to you. Sincerely.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is.

    Correct.

    and if you disconnect me charge you with murder, neither can a fetus[/QUOTE]
    Incoherent thought.

    Assuming what you are attempting to say, a fetus "using its mother's body to keep it alive" (for a short period of time until being birthed) is a biological natural necessity of the procreation process. That's not the case between two autonomous adults such as you and I. Your comparison between the two instances is not equivalent and is thus invalid.
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Complete and utter BS. What kills most people who contract COVID is the pneumonia that COVID can induce. Pneumonia is a bacteriological infection of the lungs that gains a foothold in damaged lung tissue. Thus, a person needs early and aggressive treatment of that pneumonia before it gets too bad and treatment options keep dwindling.

    Don't need it, and you're not sincerely offering it anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
  7. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,333
    Likes Received:
    10,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You should try Ivermectin. People who have taken it have recovered from Covid, so it MUST work.
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ivermectin appears to be a rather effective treatment option (even a prophylactic option). --- Given my personal circumstances, I see no reason to take it prophylactically.
     
  9. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi, Dr. Center, @CenterField ! The poster I had replied to had written, "Vaccines do not stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The vaccine doesn’t even start working until you are infected and producing the virus. That is why no country has stopped a spike in cases, even the most vaccinated countries."

    Then, my reply to him (not a bad fellow at all, really) was: "Well, I'm not a doctor, and the information I looked up on the 'net seems to be a 'little-less' than completely conclusive, although the indications are that vaccinations do a great deal to stop the overall spread of respiratory diseases (like COVID).

    I'm getting the booster in any event, however. The first two Pfizer shots caused us no problems at all, and it's likely the booster won't, either. Besides, I do see a day coming, soon, when you're going to have to be fully-vaxxed to do almost anything associated with normal life (or, close to it)."

    Your commentary is always beneficial and useful, if you would like to 'clear the air'. But, for my part, I'm all set to get the booster as soon as the 'authorities' will allow me to have it. It seems you must (MUST) wait a full six month period after your second mRNA shot (in my case, Pfizer) before you are allowed to get the booster... (sigh!). I had thought that it was six months after the first shot, but, as is so often the case in trying to figure out who gets what, and when, I was wrong... not for the first time.

     
  10. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd say the other poster is both right and wrong. He is right in saying that vaccines do not stop the spread. Since none of the Covid-19 vaccines is 100% effective, they cannot stop the spread. But they sure can limit it, given that vaccinated people are less likely to develop a replicating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 to start with (and if you don't have it, you can't spread it), and given that even when a vaccinated person does catch a replicating infection, the viral load drops precipitously thanks to the vaccine-induced secondary response, so the vaccinated person stays infectious for a shorter period. It's also been noticed in studies of transmission in households that have as index case the sole vaccinated person there, that even when the vaccinated person presents a high viral load and is theoretically infectious, in certain households nobody catches the virus from the infected vaccinated person (even though the other household members are, themselves, unvaccinated). A possible explanation that was proposed, is that the virus inside that infected vaccinated person is already weakened and defective in its infectiousness by having at least some of its spikes already knocked out by the vaccinated person's defenses. So that viral copy will be counted in a viral load count, but won't be as infectious.

    Now, where the poster is wrong, is when he says that "the vaccine won't even start working until you are infected and producing the virus." Apparently there are two things that this poster ignores. One, is that this statement is only true of the cellular immunity. Yes, once the person is in contact with the virus after being vaccinated, T cells will recognize the antigen and will activate both T-helper toxic cells that kill viral particles, and B cells that will become antibody-producing plasma cells, and this secondary response takes just a few days in the vaccinated person (much longer in the unvaccinated one). Two, the vaccines don't only produce cellular immunity. They also (and actually preferentially) produce humoral immunity. That part of the immune response is indeed at work much before the person is infected. The humoral response is already working two weeks after the second dose and continues to work for several months (it does fade, later; thus the need for boosters) even without any contact with the full virus. So, in the case of a robust humoral response, the person's system is flooded with neutralizing antibodies against the Receptor Binding Domain (RDB) of the virus' spike protein.

    If the neutralizing antibodies are above a certain titer, we call it sterilizing immunity. This means that when the person eventually gets in touch with the virus, these highly efficient neutralizing antibodies zap the virus right away, not even giving it a chance to replicate, because the coronavirus depends on the spike's RBD to enter a cell, and it can only replicate inside a cell. So, when the first few viral copies enter the individual's upper respiratory track, the neutralizing antibodies surround them and knock out all the spikes; that virus can't infect, can't replicate, and dies out. So technically even if the person "caught" the virus in the broad sense, in the strict sense that wasn't really a true infection for all practical purposes. I tried to make this distinction in the paragraphs above, by saying "replicating infection." So, yes, the vaccines do start working before the person encounters the virus.

    The poster says "That is why no country has stopped a spike in cases, even the most vaccinated countries." Well, cool, but that doesn't take into account the high likelihood that the spike in cases would be much worse without the vaccines. Like I said, it can't stop it but it can and does limit it. And there are too many intervening factors here. Regardless of level of vaccination in a given country, the spikes in cases are still occurring preferentially among the unvaccinated. Also, this doesn't account for human behavior. If vaccinated people suddenly stop all precautions (masks, social distance) and get into crowded bars and crowded sports event, yeah, of course there will be a spike in infections. Whatever percentage of no protection that is below 100% will make those people catch the virus. In places that are highly vaccinated AND masks/social distance continued, the spikes are less sharp or even non-existing, which is for example the case of Japan which wasn't highly vaccinated but now is. The Japanese people continue to wear masks and social distance even after getting the vaccine. Cases there dropped precipitously after they rapidly went from 2% to 70% of vaccinated people. And finally, the statement sounds true when you don't take into account the fading humoral immunity that some months after the second dose, start disappearing. So countries that were early jumpers into the vaccination, are now seeing a spike in cases because their population is getting to the fading point of the vaccines' humoral response. Still, that can be restored with boosters.

    Yes, the Pfizer booster is recommended after 6 months of the second dose. Don't worry, you're still fairly well-protected until you reach the 6-month mark. Some studies show Pfizer with fading antibodies before 6 months but others show their permanence in reasonable titers until six months and strong protection against hospitalizations and death for that duration, which is why the CDC and FDA recommended the booster after six months.

    You know, you don't want that booster too soon because it's unlikely you'd have another booster less than six months from that one, so once that one started fading, you'd be more exposed. Given that it is (for now) looking like we'll all need boosters every six months, it's best to get the booster at the six month mark, not sooner.

    As for the other poster being "not a bad fellow at all," I don't even know who he/she is. I think I always have good reasons to move someone to Ignore. Usually it is because of one of a few things: One, I immediately move to Ignore everybody who firmly believes that the 2020 election was stolen. I have no interest in dialoguing with someone whose perception of reality is this distorted. Two, if the person is rude and can't debate without personal attacks. Three, if the person is disingenuous and keeps putting words I didn't say in my mouth so that there is no way to hold a honest debate with him/her. Four, if the person is a conspiracy theorist with whom it is impossible to reason; why waste any time with such person? Life is short. Five, and this is more a judgment call that might apply to this specific one, if the person is so dogmatic about Virology and Immunology (without holding the degrees I hold) that the person keeps spouting nonsense and won't listen to my correcting the record to the point that I get frustrated and irritated (I'm a human being too) and no longer interested in dialoguing with that person.

    So I'm sure that whoever it is, if I moved him/her to the Ignore list, at some point an interaction triggered one of the five conditions above. I think the first 4 are completely justified. I think that about #5, a component of it is my own shortcoming of being short in patience with such individuals; I probably should try harder but like I said, I'm human too.

    Oh, and thanks for your kind words.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
  11. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't mention the poster I referenced in my open-air question to you, Dr. Center, because I wanted simply to focus on the question and not even accidentally promote any antagonism between the two of you, especially given that you 'ignore' him for reasons of your own.

    It must be quite difficult at times to defend methodologies used during the ongoing series of uncertainties about vaccination, if only because the virus keeps on mutating, and, the suggested counteractions seem to involve getting more and MORE 'shots' all the time. As we all know by now, the authorities are stating that, yes, a FOURTH 'shot' (i.e., SECOND booster) is already on the horizon... at first, only for the most vulnerable among us, but certainly that 'advice' will be deemed applicable to all of us. It's wearisome to have to contemplate this 'never-ending' situation, but we may have to -- so -- in the absence of anything more useful to say or do, I say, "So be it!"

    Truth? It'll probably become an 'annual thing', much like the 'flu shot' is now. Again, until the 'anti-vaxxers' come up with some kind of magic wand to simply eradicate the virus and all its variants, in the name of logic and common sense, I must say again, "So be it!"

    Thank you again for your patience and willingness to stand up and help all of us understand what's really going on in this area. If Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Walensky, et al, were as forthcoming, unbiased, and consistent-in-science as you have been, perhaps there wouldn't be so much angst over vaccination today. :salute:
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2021
    Junkieturtle and Seth Bullock like this.
  12. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wise man!
    Yes, going for a fourth shot already, worries me too. @557 raised the possibility that the shots will become less effective with time after repeated applications which happens to one of the subtypes of the influenza virus. I countered that these are viruses from a different family, the shots are developed using a different platform, and we haven't had evidence that jabbing someone again results in a drop of vaccine efficacy, yet (much the opposite; neutralizing antibody titers go up). But maybe if we keep jabbing people over and over, the situation will prove that 557 was right.

    I have hopes that we'll develop other interventions to counter the SARS-CoV-2 so that the current vaccines won't be the only response. One, we already have monoclonal antibodies; they should be more utilized including for prevention, especially for the immunocompromised. Two, we have one antiviral already with an active FDA application, and two others undergoing phase III. All three of these antivirals hit steps of the replication process that are the same for all variants, therefore they should be active against all current and future variants. Three, there is ongoing research trying to develop a second generation vaccine that will target more regions of the virus including those that do not significantly mutate and are present in all variants so that the vaccine will have a broader spectrum.

    So, in the relatively near future (say, in 6 to 12 months) we might start fighting off this virus with a 4-pronged approach:

    The population will be given a yearly second-generation vaccine that is protective against all variants.
    Vaccinated and unvaccinated people who catch the virus will be immediately started on the antivirals that can be taken at home, by the mouth.
    The high risk patients will also receive an infusion of monoclonal antibodies.
    The immunocompromised or people who adamantly don't want to get vaccinated will get a preventive infusion of monoclonal antibodies.

    Using the four points of attack above, maybe we will stop seeing severe or fatal cases. That's my hope.
    Haha, I won't be modest here, and I'll say this: I think I'd be a better White House advisor on this pandemic than Fauci.

    First, I do hold training and degrees equivalent to his, and a similar body of knowledge. Don't think for a moment that Fauci is incompetent. He is very competent and he knows his stuff (like I do, too) but the problem resides in what he does with his knowledge. He is now much more of a politician than a scientist, and he lies. Which brings my second point:

    Second, I wouldn't lie to the public; not ever. That's how you erode public trust, and public trust is a huge asset in a pandemic. If someone is in a position to advise the president and the public, that person should be soundly trusted by both the president and the public; but if that person lies (even with good intentions), the trust is eroded. When the advisor is deeply trusted, his advice is more likely to result in changed behavior. Fauci squandered his credibility so much that any time he dispenses good and correct advice, people don't tend to follow it; they roll their eyes and say "Well, it's Fauci; he lies, so I'm not following his advice."

    Third, I very rarely make mistakes regarding this field, given my 41 years of professional and academic practice. I was able to spot and lament every single wrong decision that the president, the CDC and the FDA made, in real time; if I were the advisor, I'd have advised against such blunders. For example, Delta had already taken over the UK when the CDC director relinquished mask recommendations for the vaccinated in the USA, declaring premature victory. When I heard her, I was appalled, thinking, "doesn't she know that Delta is coming??? This will be a disaster as it will be confusing and it's a honor system that the public won't have any way to trust or verify; so, supposedly the unvaccinated should remain masked and the vaccinated shouldn't; you walk into a crowd or the inside of a store, how do you know who is unvaccinated and is simply not honoring the system? We will have another surge." And that's what happened... This is only one example; many others exist.

    So, yes, I do think I'd be a more trustworthy advisor than Fauci. At an earlier point in my career I even had the pedigree that might get me nominated for something like this... but no longer. I'm pre-retirement, I moved out of a good chunk of the active scene, and I've been focusing on smaller and less prestigious things. At this point, I want peace. I just want to work a few more months and retire (seriously considering retirement in early April 2022).

    Besides, I hate the politics involved in a position like Fauci's. I'm no strange to the administration of healthcare services and even in my pre-retirement slow-down, I keep some administrative responsibilities, but the internal politics of an academic department and of a hospital are the most unpleasant parts of my job, let alone the backstabbing national politics we see today.

    So, thanks but no, thanks.
     
  13. submarinepainter

    submarinepainter Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    21,596
    Likes Received:
    1,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not antivax but I am against Mandates
     
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As a person who has already retired, I will now 'speak with forked-tongue', Dr. Center, and suggest that although retirement is truly *WONDERFUL*, I'd ask you to consider another path -- that of finding one or two other physicians who you consider to be your peers and start your own 'concierge' medical practice! Limit your new practice's patient population to no more than about 200 - 400, strictly limit all the entanglement and bureaucracy involved with insurance companies and the government, and practice medicine in your own way without being bullied by either of them.

    Just a thought, because that's exactly what our primary-care physician of many years did at the same time that Geriatric Joe and his Socialist wanna-be's took over... so, we joined his new concierge practice even though, as you imagine, it's expensive.

    What's happened to the entire medical sector in this country over the last fifty years is tragic, even though the medical technology is far better than anyone dared imagine back in the '70's -- but it's made even worse when we continue to lose physicians with great knowledge, experience, and ability.... Think about it at least. Sorry for the editorial.
     
    CenterField likes this.
  15. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks. It is to be considered. Another possibility is telemedicine from home for a limited number of hours per week. On the other hand, the temptation is significant, to walk away completely from Medicine and engage in other pursuits that I like, and enjoy my late years without needing to worry about patient care, liability, etc. I am financially secure so I can afford to retire without working at all.
     
    Pollycy and Bowerbird like this.
  16. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Got the vaccine, won't get the booster unless it's mandated by my job. I've already had COVID and I'm not in the high risk category.
     
  17. Lindis

    Lindis Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2021
    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have got the vaccine.
    Three times by now.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And already have the booster! I check too many boxes, got my first back in February. Have known lots who got COVID since and majority wish they'd had gotten vaccinated.
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Geez now you're going to try and turn this into an abortion thread about the 1% of abortions due to rape?

    Try to focus.
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    one either supports mandates or they don't.... seems some mandates the right supports
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2021
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends on what is the mandate and what it is about.
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why, are there some mandates you support?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The government mandates traffic laws, I support that don't you?
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes/no it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is an endothelial disease - in other words it attacks the walls of the blood vessels
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what about mandates that control what you do with your own body?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page