Please get vaccinated 👍
🇳🇱
@lupyuen totally understandable. Even with normal vaccines they usually open them up with less safety testing for people who are more vulnerable. It just makes sense sinc eyou are dealing with a different risk-reward equation than someone with a normally functioning immune system.
@freemo yep you're so lucky 🙂
@lupyuen cant argue there. a comprimised immune system seems like a very difficult condition to live with particular given the current situation.
That would be very situational and ultimately only your doctor can answer that on a case by case basis.
As someone who has a passing familiarity I'd say it depends largely on the type of vaccine. If its a live vaccine then no way, compromised immune system would not want to take such a vaccine whether it passed safety tests or not. However with vaccines that have no life material then no matter how weak your immune system might be it simply cant replicate. Though its possible you might need more doses than an average person.
Most of the risk from an inactivated vaccine that hasnt passed safety trial would be things like ADE (antibody-depedent enhancement), or an overactive immune response to the injection that might cause immediate complications.. essentially the risks revolve around your immune system reacting more strongly than anticipated, so I'd presume that if your immune system is compromise those risk factors may be less not more in that case.
@codepuppy @freemo OK I'm no medical expert ... But for my specific immunity compromise (sorry I can't say what), doctors recommend getting vaccinated because we will get severe symptoms from COVID.
But vaccination is NOT recommended for SEVERE immunity compromise (CD4 below 200)
@freemo @lupyuen
Have you considered that in this two years of wait you expose yourself and others to a significant higher risk of getting infected ? Also why two, why not one or three? Many health organisations have checked the Covid vaccines very thoroughly including the EU, US, UK and are satisfied. Are you sure your two year wait approach does not make it more unsafe with two years more exposure to the virus?
Besides that I think you will find shortly that many business are not willing to risk their lifeblood if you cannot prove immunity.
Not per legislation but by business owners requesting it.
Why should pubs, restaurants, cinemas, theaters, shops risk to be closed (again) for some time. They will expect their customers to be able to show they are immune and not a threat to their business. I more and more think that this is right. It feels a bit bad and discriminating, but I can't see business risking their existence in the attempt to make it right for everyone (which would probably not work anyhow, there is always someone)
So I guess 'no vaccine no beer' is coming soon.
How do you "check the covid vaccines very thoroughly" for long-term effects.. They have never been able to skip that step in past vaccines, there is no magical way to skip it now.. Be as thurough as you want you simply cant do a long-term case study in a short term period.
Keep in mind there are scientists in significant enough numbers who have raised formal objections to the skipped safety procesdures and some on the CDC and other organizations who quit in protest. This is hardly something that can just be hand waived away.
As for why we pick 1 or 2 years as a good number is because when we have tested vaccines in the past we have found thats the amount of time needed to expose the sorts of concerns which are typical for vaccines that show up long-term. ADE being the most notable concern doctors have which is about on the order of 1 - 2 years for that to start cropping up.
As for the idea that its more dangerous to wait because you will infect more people... well, simply put, we are completely in the dark about making that assertion as we have no long term data, so we are fairly cluess outside of some educated guesses how dangerous, if at all, the vaccine will be long term. Best case there are no problems, worst case, the virus causes extreme ADE or one of the other possible complicationsa nd everyone vaccinated now has a lethal response should they come across the virus. The risk of this is low but the mortality rate should it happen in a worst case scenario could be devastating, we simply dont know.
What compounds the risk even more so is that the viruses being administered are using a route that has never before been used for vaccines or on humans. So there is a really huge unknown there that is exceptionally worse than if this were designed more similarly to a conventional vaccine.
All in all there is little denying the risks, and even the medical researchers have voiced these concerns, so you cant hand wave them away.
I can tell you this, if businesses do make a "no vaccine no beer policy" I would actually refuse to vaccine, even after a year, as a form of protest to that and explicitly lie at bars, again as a form of protest.
I find it unacceptable that it should be legal for a person to effectively be forced to take a life-threatening vaccines (one that has not had the usual safety procedures) if they wish to participate in society. So I would do what I can to protest should that ever become a reality.
As for putting their patrons at risk.. the whole idea of a vaccine is if the staff an the people choose to be vaccinated they arent at risk, so the argument for such a policy is extremely weak in the first place.
> vaccine passports
yes, the conspiracy news folk called this years ago and now its formally happening in israel at minimum.
robert barnes has been on viva's channel talking about what the legal next steps are going to be. it's an obvious problem if businesses can mandate you take a poorly tested vaccine with liability immunities. it's a huge moral hazard.
@freemo @lupyuen @marcuse1w at least shedding might not be possible with these because there is no real virus culture. but they’ve accumulated 36 cases of complications regarding sudden blood platelet failure on top of the handful of anaphalaxis, bells palsy cases, positive tests for AIDS and positive cancer screening tests in mammograms, so the amount of concern about these damn things is only rising over time.
Its too early to say if any of those specific concerns are real (and a few I know dont really have any good evidence supporting them yet).. but the unknowns are so great that stuff like those listed might be very real problems.. when we have data we might know, but we are kinda blind right now in terms of long term effects.
let's face it, if this wasn't being pushed by billionaires we wouldn't be accepting "no data" as a valid excuse. alt. med is constantly trashed for the same things going on right now.
@marcuse1w @lupyuen
When so many doses are given out you imply cant draw conclusions from individual incidents.. but i agree, no way this should be administered right now when we lack long term case studies which is mandatory with past vaccines.. so the fact that its pushed through at all is already alarming.
you would need control populations to measure a statistical difference and the industry hides behind ethics board claims that allowing people to be unvaccinated for such a study would be unethical.
which means its *not possible* to collect the necessary data.
@marcuse1w @lupyuen
You can have a study that uses people who are unvaccinated because they personally object to being vaccinated and do not wish to be, however in doing so it wouldn't be double blind.
The truth is, they absolutely can do a study where a control group is not vaccinated (even though they are willing) haven been given a placebo. I understand why it may seem unethical, but in reality we do it all the time.
In fact we've done unvaccinated control groups for past vaccines as the norm over long periods as well.
With that said there is no solution to distrust of the board or doctors, the system only works when your doctors are acting ethically and honestly.
i saw one of the few of these studies someone managed to get through and it said the particular vaccines were effective at reducing viral incidents by around 50%, but increased the incidence of permanent adverse reactions by 400%.
but we can't figure out why these things happen so long as we keep playing denial games about it.
@marcuse1w @lupyuen
That is a pattern (the whole denying the study on ethical grounds) im just now hearing about. Yes that is concerning if true.
We can get medical data without control groups mind you, and get a sense of if a vaccine is safe or not. But its a lot less reliable if your not doing it with a control group and double blind.
Completely agree, its a huge violation, morally horrific especially considering the lack of safety on the current round of vaccines, and a slippery slope of monumental perportions (privacy of my medical record is sacred in my mind)...
Even Biden mentioned it breifly at his DNC acceptance speech sometime back and was the top reason i opposed him as president.
If ever such a thing came about, even though i am not anti-vaccine and would have normally vaccinated after 1 - 2 years once the current vaccine has been tested ong term.. if they do a vaccine passport type deal I would aggressively protest it, and specifically refuse vaccine and do everything in my power to refuse cooperation with such a scheme.
and besides even if they were, the uniform code of human rights states no-one may be discriminated against for their medical history.
@marcuse1w @lupyuen
No, for the most part not true.. my doctor only stores my medical records on paper and it is specifically against the law for my data to be shared without my permission. The only exception to this rule is state-wide databases regarding controlled substances.
I hope they do, easy winnable case to sue for a nice fortune if they do
@freemo Don't think I can afford to wait ... Since I've got a compromised immune system 🙁