(My) Highlights from the FDA's Public Comments portion of the Pfizer Booster Hearing

All that is gobildygook. Tell us the numbers not some formulas. Admit that tens of thousands of people have had severe adverse reactions to the vaccine and that 7600 have died, and that is just in the US alone.

And, admit that the vaccinated also spread the virus. And, if the vaccines work so great then why can't the unvaccinated be around the vaccinated? After all the vaccinated are vaccinated.

 

We need to cut transmission among people who don't worry about catching covid, hence the vaccine passport to prevent unvaccinated folks from keeping the new case count high enough to damage the economy.

Of course, everyone who doesn't want covid should be careful.

The thinking about Israel is they let up on other mitigation measures too soon.

You Trumpers just don't get it.

Until the new case count comes wayyyy down, the economy will not recover even if all mitigation measures are ended. Your approach allows unvaccinated younger people to continue the pandemic. The worst long-term outcome would be covid variants circulating in unvaccinated people whose natural immunity from contracting covid might not adequately prevent new infections.

We're going to see how weak the economy really is when we pull the massive subsidies.

This doesn't solve the problem of people of all ages, but especially older folks, from pulling back spending on purchases, mostly of services, that involve the possibility of contracting covid.

If you're right and covid becomes endemic, we'll have to write off a lot of capital tied up in tourism, air travel, cruise ships, restaurants, clubs--all sorts of businesses where people might contract covid.

All this to avoid folks getting vaccinated? Egads.

You put forward an approach that won't work as long as covid circulates among the unvaccinated.

You anti-vaxxers are destroying the economy by rejecting the vaccines. It won't be long before the choices will be obvious to most Americans--force people to get vaccinated, use vaccine passports to restrict the unvaccinated, or give up and watch the economy to go up in flames if covid becomes endemic. Maybe we'll get lucky and find a cure or we'll get to herd immunity. Maybe not.

 

Why did you edit out what I said about masks and reply to it as if I were talking about the vaccines?

 

I don't think you understand statistics. The idea 7,600 people have died from the vaccines is unsupported by the evidence.

But not at the rate of the unvaccinated because the vaccinated are less likely to catch covid.

The unvaccinated are more likely to get and give covid. Vaccine passports are designed to keep the unvaccinated from congregating in situations where they might spread it to each other, not just vaccinated folks.

 

Huh?

 

What I said:

What you quoted:

Your reply:

So you edited out everything I said about masks, and then replied to the portion that you didn't edit out as if I had said it about vaccines instead. Why?

...this is why I ask that people not edit my quotes when they respond to me, as it often appears they're trying to confuse the context of what I actually said.

 

Yours was one long quote and I only wanted to comment on part of it. As long as they are linked back to the entire quote, I figure that should be good enough.

If everyone did as you request for every post, the moderators would probably go around the bend.

 

The CDC itself has said that over 7600 people have died shortly after vaccination, and that is just only in the US. If they want to dispute what the people died of then they should do so. They haven't. They haven't even tried. Because they don't want people to know. If the vaccinated and the unvaccinated both spread the virus shouldn't we take action on both? Why let the vaccinated spread the virus? That makes no sense to let the vaccinated spread the virus. Why is it acceptable to let the younger innocent children die or be hospitalized because we let the vaccinated give it to them? Why don't you care about innocent children?

 

Or are the pro vaccine contrary to natural immunity, did the hearing ever touch on testing the population or unvaxxed for antibodies? Did they discuss the level of resistance to reinfection and contagious of those naturally immune to those immunized by a experimental vaccine?

One thing most blaring in all this is, naturally immune DO NOT need a booster, that should at least spark some curiosity as to the benefit of one and failure of the other

 

Not sure why you think that... the vast bulk of people indeed do as I request and it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

I of course cannot and would not compel you to respect my wishes on this, but editing me when responding alters the context of what I said regardless of whether you intend it or not, and will make me less likely to respond to you. I don't do it to people because of how much it bothers me when people do it to me ...but its totally up to you.

FYI- Emboldening, italicizing, underlining or recoloring are all great ways to emphasize a specific portion of a comment without altering the context of the comment as a whole.

 

And the vaxxed are just as likely to get and spread the virus, are you not staying current on all this for a personal reason?

 

The vaccine isn't doing that! In fact it's already been proven that the vaccine will NEVER produce herd immunity simple because the vaccinated are asymptomatic spreader at a more infectious level and just as prone to infection as nonvaxxed.. PLUS new data shows the vaxxed are now suspect #1 for the creation of the mutant strains..

 

I've never seen anything like that from the CDC or any other agency.

They have published numbers from research you have obviously rejected.

The unvaccinated spread more virus because they're more likely to get infected.

Everyone gets a crack at spreading the virus. Unvaccinated types, more likely to become infected, aren't excluded everywhere. They get plenty of chances given how many are filling our hospitals.

How can we get new case numbers down among the unvaccinated? The best way is to limit their gathering in places with faces. Do you have another idea?

Should they take a fully-vaccinated 45-year-old covid patient off the ventilator in favor of an unvaccinated 25-year-old with covid?

The vaccinated took their chances getting the vaccine to help cut transmission. What did you have in mind for the unvaccinated to do as their share?

 

"Herd immunity" doesn't mean no one will ever get infected.

This is the situation in British Columbia, Canada (5.1m people)...

"Past week, cases per 100,000 population after adjusting for age (Sept. 13-19)

• Not vaccinated: 290.3
• Partially vaccinated: 87.2
• Fully vaccinated: 26.3

Past two weeks, cases hospitalized per 100,000 population after adjusting for age (Sept. 6-19)

• Not vaccinated: 39.8
• Partially vaccinated: 8.2
• Fully vaccinated: 1.2

After factoring for age, people not vaccinated are 33.1 times more likely to be hospitalized than those fully vaccinated."​

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0170-001832

Some people think there's a lot of risk involved in taking the vaccines, but they do work.

 

No, they're far less likely to get covid. In British Columbia...

"Past week, cases per 100,000 population after adjusting for age (Sept. 13-19)

• Not vaccinated: 290.3
• Partially vaccinated: 87.2
• Fully vaccinated: 26.3

Past two weeks, cases hospitalized per 100,000 population after adjusting for age (Sept. 6-19)

• Not vaccinated: 39.8
• Partially vaccinated: 8.2
• Fully vaccinated: 1.2

After factoring for age, people not vaccinated are 33.1 times more likely to be hospitalized than those fully vaccinated."​

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0170-001832

Vaccinated are less likely to get it and thereby less likely to spread it.

 

The vaccinated need to quit spreading the virus. Facts and science show that the most vaccinated places on the planet are surging with cases - because the vaccinated spread the virus.

 

While there is a lot to agree upon here, especially what you say about masks, you do have the common sense approach that seems correct but isn't, when you talk about only locking down the vulnerable. It sounds wonderful on paper but it is utterly impossible and would have backfired, for three reasons. One, about half of our population qualifies as high risk. On obesity alone, 40% of our adults are obese, not to forget all the other highly prevalent illnesses like hypertension and diabetes. Given that adherence to lockdowns were very low to start with at the time when full lockdowns were ordered (about 45% as evidenced by cell phone mobility data), and given that the non-vulnerable must care for the vulnerable and they can take the virus to the vulnerable, your idea would have advanced the situation minimally, if at all. Two, your premise is that the non-vulnerable don't need to fear the virus because they "are not at much risk of serious injury or death" - that is false. They are not at much risk of death, but they are at risk of serious injury (like I've told you over and over but you stubbornly doesn't listen to: the young and healthy are also at risk for injury, as evidenced for example by the 30% of heart damage seen in Ohio State University college athletes who survived mild and even asymptomatic Covid-19). In any case, there is no such thing in epidemiology as a successful containment of a highly contagious disease by only implementing precautions for half the population, like I said, because the other half then takes the virus to them. Do you know why Italy had a tremendous death rate at first? Because of their multi-generational households. Over there, the elderly usually continue to live with the youngsters, unlike here where the elderly live in retirement communities. So, young and healthy Italians contaminated the old Italians and it was a disaster. Three, a lot of people who are at high risk don't even know it, due to undiagnosed conditions (many Americans with hypertension don't know that they have it). So what exactly would be your litmus test to determine who should be isolated, and who shouldn't?

Sorry but your plan SOUNDS good from a common-sense perspective and I'm sure you are fully convinced that it is good and won't believe me when I say it isn't, but sorry, it isn't. But yes, if we had investing in better masks and had educated our population about it and had delivered to them the correct mask, we could have managed this much better even without lockdowns, and yes, the stimulus checks were a huge mistake; much better would have been to invest that money into payroll protection.

Anyway, we only did 5 weeks of lockdown, poorly enforced, poorly adhered to, and not homogeneous. The lockdowns are not what hurt the economy: the virus did. You guys go on and on about lockdowns when we haven't had them since May of 2020 and only had them for a few weeks, not even in all states.

 

Oops, double post, content of the spurious one has been deleted.

 

That is exactly right, all the charts from John Hopkins demonstrate that vaccines do not work against Delta variant.
Especially for those who received vaccines six months ago.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
The cases are surging and number deaths are increasing in the countries with highest vaccination rates.

 

It's also being seen in Illinois high schools. More injected persons develops into more 'infected' persons.

Nearly All Covid Cases at Public High Schools Occurring in 'Fully Vaccinated' Students (humansarefree.com)

 

Yes, who is at risk of what. There is a chance of a negative outcome for even the healthiest individuals. Most of us perceive there is a risk, at least vaguely from seeing healthy individuals get sick, and adapt our behavior to mitigate it given our personal circumstances.

Yeah, we quarantine those ill.

Places with faces are what people avoid. I don't think most of us are prepared to let covid have its way.

 

After Mandating Masks Outdoors, Oregon’s Active COVID-19 Cases Increased 73 Percent.

Failure.​

Wear Masks Outside She Said

Maybe they should mandate double masking

 

That does make sense.
COVID is an airborne infection, so when people are wearing masks outside they create reservoir of the infection.
Once they get indoor they spread much more viruses infecting all people around.

 

Propaganda Alert!

Oregon is 48th in covid cases per million population with only Maine, Hawaii and Vermont with lower case rates, and 47th in covid deaths.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

Covid positives who get a single shot of vaccine are 50% less likely to get a second infection. Should we talk about that along with your anti-vax propaganda?