FSU Team Vaccination Rate
- Thread starter rshapley
- Start date
Well unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the general population, there are US statutes which grant top US government officials and entities broad authority through special declarations in order to assist during a public disaster or emergency. Some also provide liability immunity before, during and after the declaration has been made. The declarations could include public health and safety countermeasures that some would say violate their civil rights, but are necessary as the government sees fit, and the DOJ interpreted that to include vaccine mandates. Under EUA, public and private entities have the authority to mandate as well.
Last edited:
Harvard Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff on Vaccine Passports, the Delta Variant, and the COVID ‘Public Health Fiasco’
“Those who are pushing these vaccine mandates and vaccine passports … they're doing so much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else,” says Dr. Martin Kulldorff, one of the ...
m.theepochtimes.com
I highly recommend anyone interested in all this watch the full interview. It is free to watch. Martin Kulldorff is one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration which I have referenced earlier in this thread.
His credentials above. Professor of Medicine at Harvard's medical school. An epidemiologist and biostatician. Helped the CDC develop their vaccine safety protocols. Just might be worth listening to.
That doesn’t negate that those that had covid are shown to have as high an immunity as those vaccinated. Now I question why the CDC says they should be vaccinated when this data shows they already have immunity.
That doesn’t excuse Fauci for lying to people, which he admitted he did. He said he was saying what he thought people would accept at the time even though it wasn’t what he actually believed. That is why I really don’t trust anything we hear from government employees.
It says why in my post that you you responded to: the vaccine boosts immunity. The problem they see is that being infected with COVID isn't providing enough long-term immunity. If you already had COVID, consider the shot a booster.
No, you are. One of the posters on here's neighbor passed away yesterday who had already had covid. She was unvaccinated. All the research that I have read shows that the antibodies wane.
What is your agenda? The vaccine isn't going to hurt you so why not use it?
My question for the group here is; and I am geniunely curious, I wonder why there has been absolutely no pushing of any kind of OFFENSIVE measure against COVID by the CDC or NIH or the government? I only hear defensive measures like mask wearing and vaccines. I am not anti-vax, I just would love to hear about some positive measures we could take to protect ourselves, such as vitamins, exercise, diet, etc......surely there is some research like this out there.
I imagine there will be as time goes on. Someone posted yesterday something regarding the benefit of vitamins, specifically vitamin D.
probably worth reading this, pages 6-11 in particular. it provides a list of vitamins and supplements in addition to steroids that are given to treat COVID patients at various stages of the dsease.
They don't know how long adaptive immunity lasts for people once infected with COVID or for people who are vaccinated. That data is still being monitored. They do know that getting vaccinated increases immunity, and they do know that unvaccinated people are being infected twice. Many coronaviruses have antibodies that just don’t seem to last very long compared to other types of viruses, and all things considered, it's not safe to assume that these will last.
Very early and inconclusive. Good data that protection simply from recovering from Covid is not only as good if not better than the vaccine but also it protects much better against the variants where the vaccines are failing us.
Not to mention the CDC seems to flat out ignore really good data coming out of other countries. When you look at the CDC's performance the last 18 months (and the WHO as well) you can't honestly blame anyone for skepticism.
Compounded with recommendations that truly don't seem to correlate with the data we have (vaccination of children, contemplating vaccine mandates of young healthy people, etc)
I would imagine this is because it's a new virus and infections quickly ran rampant from the start. The primary focus as been on stopping the pandemic, not studying what can or can't be done to stop it from happening down the line. I'm sure it will happen later, but in the meantime, seems like social distancing and masks are our offensive. Maybe do some things that are already known to be immunofavorable? That could help your body fight after being infected, but we would still need antibodies.
Memo to file: the best and brightest folks are not necessarily the people you hear from on these issues.
Think about virtually every other governmental/public function: IRS, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, medical examiners, health departments, public education, social security/medicare, departments of transportation, etc., etc., etc. Lots of buffoons buried in those very different disciplines.
Is anyone confident that the speakers on THIS TOPIC are uniquely excellent?? LOL. Remember that the bell curve means that 70% of the population will generally be in the unremarkable "center."
^^^^^Boom. People who are GENERALLY healthy, and who GENERALLY have reasonable degrees of natural resistances, will overwhelmingly be fine. That doesn't mean they cannot get or transmit COVID. But it does mean that their chances of having a horrible (or even bad) outcome are infinistismally small. Eat well. Sleep. Exercise. And maintain a positive mental/social outlook,
Overall health is way more important than any partiuclar "Covid strategy," whether that is masking, isolating, vaxxing or any combination of any of them. Unfortunately, the talking heads -- and the media -- love to fixate on the extreme scenarios, and to portray this in the most dire terms possible. And plenty of sheep will blindly follow that (skewed) message.
That was actually super helpful thank you!! Why is no one talking about this? Zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Melatonin, these are all readily availible for many people without all of the controversy.
And therein lies the problem. This isn't something we will vaccinate our way out of. And the short sightedness of the approach will cause so much more suffering and death longterm. This is just inexcusable and irresponsible from public health officials.
I didn't say anything about the efficacy of the vaccine at preventing someone from getting sick. My only comment was that the vaccinated can transmit the virus, and implied that the vaccine would not rid us of covid or its variants. Both are true, and you responded with "Not entirely true," and then copied and pasted stuff from the CDC website that supported my statement. So my statement was entirely true.
The CDC uses TONS of studies from all over the world for everything it does. It's silly to consider otherwise. Skimming through one page on their website is very telling...
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
www.cdc.gov
Oh? Then please link me to the "good data" because the only peer reviewed studies that examine efficacy against varients support the vaccines being more effective. From one study:
"We examined whether sera from recovered and naïve donors, collected before and after immunizations with existing messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, could neutralize the Wuhan-Hu-1 and B.1.351 variants. Prevaccination sera from recovered donors neutralized Wuhan-Hu-1 and sporadically neutralized B.1.351, but a single immunization boosted neutralizing titers against all variants and SARS-CoV-1 by up to 1000-fold."
While you are right that the evidence regarding vaccination after infection is early, it leans one way exclusively.
Well clearly no one or thing will help you believe otherwise dude.
You are speaking in terms of staying well or getting well.
The people we most frequently hear from, unfortunately, are hell-bent on conveying the most drastic message possible.
Except that the CDC is in the extreme right hand tail of the distribution, unlike you guys.
Last edited:
Are you trying to be a bad troll? lol The stuff that I posted didn't verify your statement.
Scientific studies state that vaccine reduces the risk of people with to acquire and transmit the virus because vaccines result in a significantly reduced viral load for people who get breakthrough infections.
Last edited:
God forbid our policy makers have any foresight whatsoever to what their actions may cause. Your cure can't be worse the thing it is trying to cure.
These people aren't thinking past tomorrow. That is terrifying. Yes science always changes and the nature of things makes everything somewhat reactionary. But that doesn't prevent the decision makers from thinking these things through better and the consequences of the approach they decide on taking.
Decisions are risk/benefit analysis. I highly recommend you watch the video I have posted here from Dr. Kulldorff.
Are we talking 1 or 2?The CDC uses TONS of studies from all over the world for everything it does. It's silly to consider otherwise. Skimming through one page on their website is very telling...
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.
Oh? Then please link me to the "good data" because the only peer reviewed studies that examine efficacy against varients support the vaccines being more effective. From one study:
"We examined whether sera from recovered and naïve donors, collected before and after immunizations with existing messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, could neutralize the Wuhan-Hu-1 and B.1.351 variants. Prevaccination sera from recovered donors neutralized Wuhan-Hu-1 and sporadically neutralized B.1.351, but a single immunization boosted neutralizing titers against all variants and SARS-CoV-1 by up to 1000-fold."
While you are right that the evidence regarding vaccination after infection is early, it leans one way exclusively.
I posted the article from tha National Institutes of Health website regarding natural immunity from recovering from Covid.
Absolutely. She is a family friend and the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. And how else are we going to know what to get her for Christmas if we don’t talk to her?
Ok. They still pass it. Maybe less but they still pass it. Rules that ignore risk of they’re spreading it cause a lot of logical dissonance. It’s like in my world where we litigate warning cases for product liability. Over warning and under warning are equally dangerous. Same with masks. Only place ive been in the last year that made sense was Vegas. I hated the mask rules (and won’t ever do vacation in mask places again) but will give them credit for treating them like that matter. Signs all over not only directing their use, but also clearly showing how to use them properly. They also limited what masks you could use by not allowing any vented ones. And they enforced mask rules like nazis, to the point where one of my buddies had a loose one that would slip down his nose. Someone made him fix it every time within two minutes. Again I hated it but I give them credit for consistency. They acted like it mattered. No one else does.
How do you know it isn’t going to hurt me? What are the long term effects of this treatment? When it alters the RNA in order to stop the spike proteins are there beneficial effects to not altering the RNA? What happens in five years? How will it act at that time? Why, when the expectation of these vaccines was to remain in the arm muscle are they finding it in the entire body, including reproductive cells? Until those and many other questions are answered I refuse to be a lab experiment.
