Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[Zelen]

del

[FelixGamingX1]

There is no safety data for additional shots, or for mix-and-match

I know the term emergency use, may sound like a leap of faith into the unknown. However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility. As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

[Pat]

However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility.

Do you have any actual argument against their credibility, or are you just latching onto the quirky name of the blog in an attempt to discredit something you don't like?

[oggsmash]

I'm not too concerned about how many booster shots people will need to take. If anything, the new tech could even help fight off cancerous cells or whatever they program into it. Enough people already took it to deem it safe. I'm just curious on why and how long it will take for full approval.

   My wife works in clinical trial research... what you say about enough people is simply not how safety is determined.   There has been no study on long term effects.   It could be safe (as safe as vaccines can be) or it could have long term issues.  Seems we are now getting some odd signals from media and powers that be that the vaccinated can act as super spreaders.   Strange that people vaccinated for polio are never, ever spreading it around.

[Ghostmaker]

For you to be able to offend me I would need to care about your opinion, I don't, you're just another NPC.

It's great that we agree that neithet of us give a shit about what the other thinks. Well now, that's one thing we got.

What about Breakfast at Tiffany's?
=)

Hey I think I remember that film!

[Zelen]

There is no safety data for additional shots, or for mix-and-match

I know the term emergency use, may sound like a leap of faith into the unknown. However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility. As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

All of the data is directly from Pfizer. The author of the blog is Kaiser Fung, which should be obvious from the books he prominently displays. His analysis isn't even drawing any conclusions, just critiquing the study and the messiness of the data. But you're right, why would you listen to a statistical expert when analyzing statistical data.

[FelixGamingX1]

I'm not too concerned about how many booster shots people will need to take. If anything, the new tech could even help fight off cancerous cells or whatever they program into it. Enough people already took it to deem it safe. I'm just curious on why and how long it will take for full approval.

   My wife works in clinical trial research... what you say about enough people is simply not how safety is determined.   There has been no study on long term effects.   It could be safe (as safe as vaccines can be) or it could have long term issues.  Seems we are now getting some odd signals from media and powers that be that the vaccinated can act as super spreaders.   Strange that people vaccinated for polio are never, ever spreading it around.

You know the vaccine supposedly doesn't contain the actual virus, right? I'm no expert in the way these new vax are manufactured but unlike Covid, the odds of serious complications are at the bare minimum. Like, you really gotta hit the unlucky lottery. Still, your body your choice. Do what you feel comfortable with. The fact 50% of the nation is already vaccinated aught speak for itself.

[FelixGamingX1]

There is no safety data for additional shots, or for mix-and-match

I know the term emergency use, may sound like a leap of faith into the unknown. However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility. As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

All of the data is directly from Pfizer. The author of the blog is Kaiser Fung, which should be obvious from the books he prominently displays. His analysis isn't even drawing any conclusions, just critiquing the study and the messiness of the data. But you're right, why would you listen to a statistical expert when analyzing statistical data.

The word 'expert' aught be reevaluated during this day and time. I listen to everyone then make my own conclusions. Expert, is being thrown around as lightly as game designer on rpggeek. If everyone is, than expertise isn't a thing but a state of mind.

[Pat]

There is no safety data for additional shots, or for mix-and-match

I know the term emergency use, may sound like a leap of faith into the unknown. However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility. As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

All of the data is directly from Pfizer. The author of the blog is Kaiser Fung, which should be obvious from the books he prominently displays. His analysis isn't even drawing any conclusions, just critiquing the study and the messiness of the data. But you're right, why would you listen to a statistical expert when analyzing statistical data.

The word 'expert' aught be reevaluated during this day and time. I listen to everyone then make my own conclusions. Expert, is being thrown around as lightly as game designer on rpggeek. If everyone is, than expertise isn't a thing but a state of mind.

He has advanced degrees from Ivy League schools, has held leadership positions in multiple businesses, has written books, speaks at conferences, teaches at Columbia and NYU, and all of those are directly related to the subject he's addressing in the blog.

At least that answers my question from earlier. You've decided what you believe, and you're looking for anything to discredit anyone who says anything that contradicts your preexisting beliefs, even if your objections make no sense whatsoever.

[FelixGamingX1]

There is no safety data for additional shots, or for mix-and-match

I know the term emergency use, may sound like a leap of faith into the unknown. However, pointing out to 'junkcharts' as if it was a credible source of data is where the argument loses credibility. As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

All of the data is directly from Pfizer. The author of the blog is Kaiser Fung, which should be obvious from the books he prominently displays. His analysis isn't even drawing any conclusions, just critiquing the study and the messiness of the data. But you're right, why would you listen to a statistical expert when analyzing statistical data.

The word 'expert' aught be reevaluated during this day and time. I listen to everyone then make my own conclusions. Expert, is being thrown around as lightly as game designer on rpggeek. If everyone is, than expertise isn't a thing but a state of mind.

At least that answers my question from earlier. You've decided what you believe, and you're looking for anything to discredit anyone who says anything that contradicts your preexisting beliefs, even if your objections make no sense whatsoever.

Hmm, no. What I'm doing is questioning the facts. E.g. I've stated 50% of the US populace are now fully vaccinated, according to the public data. That's easy to confirm by doing a simple google search. Now, some of the counter arguments I've received are mostly pointing to shoddy sources. I'd much rather listen to actual science, not experts.

[KingCheops]

As for mixing vaxs, I remember hearing that. Not something I'd personally want to try.

You get no choice where I am.  If you go they jab you with what you have and when they invite you back for round 2 they just jab you with whatever else is at hand.

The government took less than a month to make this decision based on "studies" that were not linked in the article at the state news website.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm not too concerned about how many booster shots people will need to take. If anything, the new tech could even help fight off cancerous cells or whatever they program into it. Enough people already took it to deem it safe. I'm just curious on why and how long it will take for full approval.

   My wife works in clinical trial research... what you say about enough people is simply not how safety is determined.   There has been no study on long term effects.   It could be safe (as safe as vaccines can be) or it could have long term issues.  Seems we are now getting some odd signals from media and powers that be that the vaccinated can act as super spreaders.   Strange that people vaccinated for polio are never, ever spreading it around.

You know the vaccine supposedly doesn't contain the actual virus, right? I'm no expert in the way these new vax are manufactured but unlike Covid, the odds of serious complications are at the bare minimum. Like, you really gotta hit the unlucky lottery. Still, your body your choice. Do what you feel comfortable with. The fact 50% of the nation is already vaccinated aught speak for itself.

I'm not following you. What does 50% of the nation being vaccinated speak of?

[Zelen]

Hmm, no. What I'm doing is questioning the facts. E.g. I've stated 50% of the US populace are now fully vaccinated, according to the public data. That's easy to confirm by doing a simple google search. Now, some of the counter arguments I've received are mostly pointing to shoddy sources. I'd much rather listen to actual science, not experts.

I'd be curious to hear how you feel that your behavior constitutes questioning facts.

Pfizer data is a primary data set on safety and efficacy. The point of analyzing this data set demonstrates that the data that Pfizer is using to support its claims (e.g. safe and effective) is actually quite shoddy.

Percentage of the population receiving a vaccination tells literally nothing about safety or efficacy, because there is no one tracking that data.

What do you think "actual science" is?

[FelixGamingX1]

Hmm, no. What I'm doing is questioning the facts. E.g. I've stated 50% of the US populace are now fully vaccinated, according to the public data. That's easy to confirm by doing a simple google search. Now, some of the counter arguments I've received are mostly pointing to shoddy sources. I'd much rather listen to actual science, not experts.

Percentage of the population receiving a vaccination tells literally nothing about safety or efficacy, because there is no one tracking that data.

Comments like these... Fake News!

[Zelen]

Comments like these... Fake News!

Nothing I've seen suggests there's any kind of systematic effort to track adverse events or vaccine efficacy over ~150 million people. If you want to dispute the claim, then you're free to provide some evidence.

[Ed.] To avoid veering off into non-sequitur land, lets bring it back to the original issue.

The Pfizer data is the highest quality trial data that we have on long-term efficacy and safety. There is no better data set, so we naturally should analyze that data and scrutinize the methodology and conclusions drawn from it.