The ‘I’ve Got The COVID Shot Club’!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pics
Date sort Score sort
Fuchsia said:
At least I start my sentences with capitals, maybe you should try it. Lol.
Click to expand...
sure, when my writing mattered. like in the dissertations i wrote for both of my masters degrees.

but in text messages and online forums? no, i don’t think i will.

but if you insist on dragging me down into a grammatical debate and dying on this hill, then fine. i’ll oblige.

your first sentence is a run on. “at least i start my sentences with capitals” is a complete thought. it requires a period. “maybe you should try it” is another complete thought. the comma is being used incorrectly.
 
DickMidnight said:
sure, when my writing mattered. like in the dissertations i wrote for both of my masters degrees.

but in text messages and online forums? no, i don’t think i will.

but if you insist on dragging me down into a grammatical debate and dying on this hill, then fine. i’ll oblige.

your first sentence is a run on. “at least i start my sentences with capitals” is a complete thought. it requires a period. “maybe you should try it” is another complete thought. the comma is being used incorrectly.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, remind me never to go up against you in a war of words, grammar, punctuation etc ♡♡♡.
K. Folks. Just a chicken site. 😋 :jumpy

Happy Aloha Saturday folks! May you all be safe and smart and well. Mind, body and soul ♡♡♡
 
I will put out my experience. I got Moderna back in April and developed thrombocytopenia a couple of weeks later. My doctor did not know if the vaccine caused it and candidly told me there is no way of knowing, because the vaccine is so new. However, there was no other explanation and certain other vaccines historically have caused this condition. Thankfully, I've fully recovered. However, I could not get comfortable with the idea of taking a second shot.

I did a ton of reading in deciding whether to get my second shot. Overall, my views on the safety and efficacy changed somewhat. By in large, I still think it is relatively safe, and seems to reduce severe disease and likelihood of death for at least a few months.

My biggest disappointment was in learning that the vaccines are non-sterilizing, and thus won't lead to eradiation of the disease. When the rollout first began, I remember reading that at 50% vaccination, we might have herd immunity. My husband were tracking the statistics and went in for our vaccinations as soon as we were eligible. Well, herd immunity clearly did not happen and I've read that that now, with delta, it's basically an impossibility. Doing the right thing and helping with the herd immunity was the single biggest reason I went to get the vaccine. Very frustrating to learn that probably was never in the cards.

I also think that the safety profile the vaccines is more risky that the older vaccines we are accustom too. There are a lot of reports to VAERS -- and by large order of magnitude -- they are greater than we have seen before. That doesn't mean its "poison" or that the benefits still don't outweigh the risks for many, but I don't think the risks can be entirely discounted either.

My biggest worry is that I cannot see how we can be certain that the vaccines will not lead to long term consequences. Both the underlying mRNA technology and the lipid suspension vehicle, are new technologies. Until we have a few years of statistics behind us, we are all just making educated guesses. I think (and hope) they are safe, but only time will tell. Particularly given my own experience, I would never feel comfortable trying to strong-arm someone into getting vaccinated and do not support the idea of vaccine passports.

Finally, I don't think it is wrong to question your doctor or try to gather all the information you can. Doctor's are not infallible and the scientific consensus has often been wrong. Active questioning and curiosity is part of the scientific process.

BTW, I've enjoyed reading the thread. One of the things I like about this forum is that people can express views and disagree politely.
 
Last edited:
Here’s all I’m going to say:
We all live in the same world. No matter if it is fake we are all experiencing a global pandemic. Lives are being lost. Businesses being shut down. If getting the vaccine will make this all end sooner then I think people should get it.

I got mine as soon as it became available to the 12-17 age range.
 
Morrigan said:
My biggest disappointment was in learning that the vaccines are non-sterilizing, and thus won't lead to irradiation of the disease.
Click to expand...
No vaccine is "sterilizing". That was never the goal of the COVID vaccine or any other vaccine.
What do you mean by "irradiation"? You mean eradication? This is simply untrue if so, as a matter of epidemiology. Lessening the chance that a virus will infect someone leads to a reduction in the probability that it's transmitted. That's how every other vaccine ever created works. While a vaccine that produces "sterilizing" immunity would be great, it's not really an achievable goal and is not necessary to achieve eradication anyway.
Morrigan said:
Very frustrating to learn that probably was never in the cards.
Click to expand...
Eradication was most certainly in the cards. We failed at it.

The vaccine does use "new" technology, but it's been in development for decades. This just happens to be the first. Scientists were able to leverage past research to develop this new vaccine and chose the RNA type because of its enormous promise to deliver unprecedented protection--which is exactly what it did. mRNA vaccines aren't any different than any others, residue-wise. The little strand of messenger mRNA is gone from your body in a matter of hours, after it's done its job of alerting your T-cells, which starts the process of protecting your body from infection with anything that has that particular protein in it.

I do clinical research to develop drugs, and I can tell you that the vaccines went through exactly the same scrutiny for safety and efficacy as any other vaccine would. Resources were channeled from other projects due to the emergent need for a vaccine. Some vaccines did not pass safety and efficacy requirements set by the FDA. We all need to thank our lucky stars that someone found the spike protein for the antigen that the vaccines are based on, because it was a true needle in a haystack.

I am sorry you developed thrombocytopenia. I hope it was not from the vaccine. Chances of that appear to be about 1 in a million. No drug or vaccine is completely free of risks.
 
Morrigan said:
Finally, I don't think it is wrong to question your doctor or try to gather all the information you can. Doctor's are not infallible and the scientific consensus has often been wrong. Active questioning and curiosity is part of the scientific process.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, your healthcare is your responsibility. Absolutely.
You go to your doctor because they are experts in medicine, and know more than we do about certain things.
Scientists also know more than we do about certain things because they are trained in a very technical and often complicated field. Active questioning and curiosity are certainly part of the scientific process, if you are a scientist. It's always good to ask questions but your conclusions must be drawn on facts that are true and accurate and are based on your own accurate understanding about vaccines, adjuvants, and virology. So much that is out there is completely inaccurate about this vaccine, (such as it causes people to be sterile or spreads the virus or kills people outright), but the data we have show a very different story. Looking at the DATA produced by EPIDEMIOLOGISTS, the FDA, NIH and CDC and the rest of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is what people need to look at. Look at probabilities instead of opinions based on things that are not true. Your doctor may not be infallible, but they are trained in medicine, not like the people who post conspiracy and anti-vaccine videos to Youtube.
 
Sue Gremlin said:
What do you mean by "irradiation"? You mean eradication?
Click to expand...

Thank you, I meant eradication. And thank you as well, for taking the time to respond to me. I've always appreciated your posts and found them informative.

Anyway, as I understand it, covid now exists in animal reservoirs and is spread globe-wide. It also mutates and spreads easily. Those characteristics would appear to make it very challenging to eradicate.

By sterilizing, I meant that the vaccine would prevent you from carrying the disease. I've read that the vaccine for smallpox is an example of a sterilizing vaccine. Other vaccines, like the flu shot, are not -- train your body to fight and aid in reducing the symptoms. You are correct in that if a virus is very slow to mutate (like polio), wide spread use of non-sterilizing vaccines can lead to eradication. But, if a virus is faster mutating, like Covid, eradication is going be quite hard, if not impossible. I'm obviously speculating here, but I have difficulty in seeing how we could have globally rolled out a vaccine campaign quickly and simultaneously enough to have slowed transmission enough to have stamped out covid as a practical matter. Looking at data from countries like Israel and UK that have very fast and efficient roll-outs, makes me think there is really nothing as a practical matter we could have done, once the disease got its foothold.

Sue Gremlin said:
The vaccine does use "new" technology, but it's been in development for decades.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has, and that does give me some comfort. But, there have been struggles along the way. Here is an article written back in 2016 that discusses Moderna's efforts with mRNA. Its a long piece, mainly detailing some the company politics ask personalities, but it does get into the technology a bit. Moderna very much hoped it could use the mRNA technology to cure diseases, such as cancer. The problem they ran into was figuring out how to get the mRNA delivered. To quote the article:

"Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.

Novartis abandoned the related realm of RNA interference over concerns about toxicity, as did Merck and Roche."

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/

I couldn't find anything discussing more precisely how many doses Moderna thought were too many, or whether they came up with a safer delivery solution in the intervening years.

I know I sound negative on them, but I truly do think that the covid vaccines are a wonder of engineering and have saved lives. Their development is an amazing story. But, I also believe there are limitations and like any new drug, there should be room for scrutiny and debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TheGoldenChicken
    • Love
Pumpkin / Chocolate Serama
Replies
7
Views
1K
mcguffinvalley
mcguffinvalley
K
Sexing buff Orpingtons
Replies
1
Views
602
redinator
redinator

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom