- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:44 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Is there any adverse event the vaccines supposedly cause that isn't a sequalae of the virus itself?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:09 pm to Duke
quote:
quote:
Is there any adverse event the vaccines supposedly cause that isn't a sequalae of the virus itself?
Still have to have the virus 1st for that to happen.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:11 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Still have to have the virus 1st for that to happen.
So the strategy is, no vaccine, no attempt at prevention, and everyone getting the virus in order to get out of the pandemic, yet the strategy to mitigate adverse events of the virus is to simply not get the virus? I'm not understanding the logic here.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:20 pm to stout
quote:
Enjoy your eventual heart issues
Depends on perspective. Being a chunky boy who got Covid in 2020, I decided to get the vax in 2021 right at 1 year later.
My perspective on getting vaccinated was if I got the Covid variant and died, that would suck b/c it could have been prevented with the vax.
But if the vaccine kills me, then hopefully my children will get a nice settlement one day.
Win win-ish.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:23 pm to mikelbr
quote:
But if the vaccine kills me, then hopefully my children will get a nice settlement one day.
They aren’t liable
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:43 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
They aren’t liable
They absolutely will be if the vax turns out to actually kill people and cause chronic heart conditions.
shite would be as effective at stopping lawsuits as the injury waiver verbiage on the back of your ticket stub at theme parks
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:30 pm to stout
seems like a retired CT surgeon who has been a snake oil supplement salesman for 40 years tested some vaxxed people and decided that they score higher on this lab assay which he made up and has been pimping for a decade but no one uses, which he claims shows they have higher risk of cardiovascular disease even though they had no such outcomes and no one other than him thinks his lab tests are meaningful
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:33 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:Yeah, I googled him before seeing this post. He pretty much claims about everything you can eat (including “healthy vegetables”) causes inflammation. He tries to sell his own books and supplements.
Steven Gundy, the author of that abstract, is known to push pseudo-scientific facts. He is a former heart surgeon who is now a supplement salesman.
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:04 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
So the strategy is, no vaccine, no attempt at prevention, and everyone getting the virus in order to get out of the pandemic, yet the strategy to mitigate adverse events of the virus is to simply not get the virus? I'm not understanding the logic here.
If you get vaccinated then your body will have a reaction to the shot. Conversely, if you are unvaccinated then you will have to actually be exposed to the virus. If never exposed then you will never have a reaction.
Young people are showing almost no adverse reaction to actual Covid other than maybe minor cold symptoms so why even risk exposing them to the genetic code of the virus to create a response.
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:10 pm to STEVED00
quote:
If you get vaccinated then your body will have a reaction to the shot. Conversely, if you are unvaccinated then you will have to actually be exposed to the virus. If never exposed then you will never have a reaction.
Young people are showing almost no adverse reaction to actual Covid other than maybe minor cold symptoms so why even risk exposing them to the genetic code of the virus to create a response.
What? Do you think that when they get COVID itself, they don't get exposed to the genetic code of the virus itself? You aren't making sense. You are saying that children getting COVID isn't a big deal, but also they won't get exposed to the virus? None of that actually answers my initial question either, which is what adverse events of the vaccine are not adverse events of the virus itself?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:15 pm to Penrod
quote:
Obviously a vaccine is not a good thing if it doesn’t do good. If it does do good, then the test is: does it do more good than harm. Continuously pointing out that the vaccine does a little harm now and then does not accomplish much; you have to show that it does as much harm as good…and you haven’t
What a fricking vapid paragraph. Think before you type, old man.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:16 pm to stout
quote:
Not very many
Put down the crack pipe man. I personally know of 5.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:16 pm to crazy4lsu
Dude NOT EVERYONE GETS COVID! To have a bad reaction to Covid, you FIRST HAVE TO BE EXPOSED TO IT.
Chances of being exposed to it “in the wild” is something less than 100%. Probably way less.
Chance of being exposed to it via the vaccine is 100%.
Chances of being exposed to it “in the wild” is something less than 100%. Probably way less.
Chance of being exposed to it via the vaccine is 100%.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:19 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
So COVID has long-term sequalae that we haven't fully fleshed out yet, which means that a vaccine program that decreases the chance of severe infection is also bad? I'm not following here.
No, you aren't. People are assuming there are only two outcomes with this thing- you get really sick and die or you get sort of sick or moderately sick and get over it. What is quickly being fleshed out is that even without severe disease, there could be life- altering brain damage- look we all lose brain function as we age, what was shown with the BioBank study was this was happening at an accelerated rate in COVID patients without much correlation to how sick they were. If the vaccine helps to dampen the spread of the disease, then fewer people would be exposed to it and not have the brain function loss (which would potentially put a damper on your work life, home life, etc) Now the big question- how effective will the vaccines be at this job- it might be "not very" over the longterm, even if it helps lower risk of serious disease.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:22 pm to STEVED00
quote:
Dude NOT EVERYONE GETS COVID! To have a bad reaction to Covid, you FIRST HAVE TO BE EXPOSED TO IT.
Chances of being exposed to it “in the wild” is something less than 100%. Probably way less.
Now apply this to the suggestion that you 'let it run through the population' herd immunity strategy rather than have a vaccine at all. I've said numerous times that the problem with such a herd immunity strategy is because the distribution of the virus is never going to cover every population subset at any one point in time. Regardless, to get to herd immunity, we need a very specific percentage of people to have some sort of immunity. Yet now part of the strategy is somehow a nebulous notion of uneven viral distribution.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:24 pm to PassingThrough
quote:
People are assuming there are only two outcomes with this thing- you get really sick and die or you get sort of sick or moderately sick and get over it. What is quickly being fleshed out is that even without severe disease, there could be life- altering brain damage- look we all lose brain function as we age, what was shown with the BioBank study was this was happening at an accelerated rate in COVID patients without much correlation to how sick they were. If the vaccine helps to dampen the spread of the disease, then fewer people would be exposed to it and not have the brain function loss (which would potentially put a damper on your work life, home life, etc) Now the big question- how effective will the vaccines be at this job- it might be "not very" over the longterm, even if it helps lower risk of serious disease.
Based on what? The sheer fact of boosters?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:27 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
So the strategy is, no vaccine, no attempt at prevention, and everyone getting the virus in order to get out of the pandemic, yet the strategy to mitigate adverse events of the virus is to simply not get the virus? I'm not understanding the logic here.
I'm not following your logic here.
Why do you assume not getting the vaccine = no attempt at prevention? It's been almost 2 years and many of us have been successful in our attempts at not getting the virus without relying on a vaccine.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:33 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
Why do you assume not getting the vaccine = no attempt at prevention? It's been almost 2 years and many of us have been successful in our attempts at not getting the virus without relying on a vaccine.
What prevention strategy did you use?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 6:39 pm to crazy4lsu
We will see if boosters seem to help with "break through" cases, but I can also tell you there has never been a particularly effective coronavirus vaccine on the animal side of things though they have been used for decades. Granted they don't include any mRNAs so it will remain to be seen if they work better. I am guessing it will be like a flu shot where they are using educated guesses to bet on which strain will be prevalent- sometimes they it right and sometimes they don't.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News