re: Does anyone regret getting vaccinated?

quote:

---

You wrote all that and didn't answer my question. What are the risks of vaccination that are not also risks of the virus itself?

---

I didn't say there were any. My point was that getting the vaccination is choosing to take on those potential risks. Not getting a vaccine means I may eventually have aftermath risks of covid. Why is your stance 100% for the vaccine? Do you have children, did you get them vaccinated? On an individual basis, can you admit that some people truly are not at risk and don't need to be vaccinated?
I'd rather get covid (there is a very good chance I have already had it and didn't notice) and have natural immunity vs receive a vaccine.

quote:

---

Why is it that you aren't answering my questions directly? What are the long-term effects of vaccinations generally? Just describe them or say you don't know.

---

I don't know specifically. I do know that there are potential long-term effects with everything, including these vaccinations and having covid.

quote:

---

Very cool that people can ignore legitimate biological explanations because they 'don't feel like it.' This notion existed before during previous vaccination efforts and thankfully it was stamped out. Guess we will have to do it again.

---

It's not as simple as a, "don't feel like it." My decision to not get vaccinated is based on the data available and at an individual level. I don't make my health decisions based on the entire population.
I am not anti-vax by any means. Some people clearly should get one of the vaccines, some people will eventually have natural immunity, and some people might have a good enough immune system to not have a vaccine and also never get covid. Why is that not good enough? Having a population that is resistant to covid would be best via multiple methods in the long term.

quote:

---

On an individual basis, can you admit that some people truly are not at risk and don't need to be vaccinated?

---

There might be individual reasons, but the immunologic reasons are clear, which is what I described to you. I can get down to the molecular level if it would suit you, but there wouldn't be a point. I don't care what you do, honestly. I've seen enough for myself to know that the risks of the vaccines are much smaller than the sequelae of COVID itself, and I recommend the vaccine strongly for every patient I encounter.

quote:

---

I don't know specifically. I do know that there are potential long-term effects with everything, including these vaccinations and having covid.

---

Well, generally, vaccinations don't have effects that occur far down the line from the original vaccination. Either they occur shortly after vaccination or they don't occur at all. Hence why the long-term data caveat is so stupid. How are we to link a specific disease process to a vaccination if that disease process occurred five years after the vaccination?

quote:

---

My decision to not get vaccinated is based on the data available and at an individual level. I

---

You characterized it by not wanting to protect the weak. Don't hamster. Just say 'I don't care about how human immunity is designed, I care only about myself.' It is more honest.

quote:

---

Some people clearly should get one of the vaccines, some people will eventually have natural immunity, and some people might have a good enough immune system to not have a vaccine and also never get covid. Why is that not good enough? Having a population that is resistant to covid would be best via multiple methods in the long term.

---

You understand we've studied this, and found that humans make antibodies to different epitopes, which is why vaccination is effective at the population level in the first place. But again, actual scientific discussion would be wasted on you.

I straight up don't believe that RN. Firstly, I don't believe nurses in general. Second 3 vaccination injuries in one place would be exceedingly rare. I'm associated with a massive medical center and there hasn't even been rumors of one vaccination injury. Honestly, her tweet beggars belief.

quote:

---

There might be individual reasons, but the immunologic reasons are clear,

---

I see zero reason to vaccinate a healthy 8 year old kid that’s been around this crap for going on 2 years now and is just fine. Everyone that he has anything to do with outside of school has had both shots and a lot have had the third. As far as individual reasons go, I’m the parent and I don’t care what the government has to say about a vaccine that poses very little risk to my child.

quote:

---

I see zero reason to vaccinate a healthy 8 year old kid that’s been around this crap for going on 2 years now and is just fine. Everyone that he has anything to do with outside of school has had both shots and a lot have had the third. As far as individual reasons go, I’m the parent and I don’t care what the government has to say about a vaccine that poses very little risk to my child.

---

Very cool. Also I don't care. Like I said, the immunologic argument is clear. Do what you will with it, I don't give a shite.

quote:

---

fake vaccines.

---

quote:

---

That might be a good point, but I would argue that this shouldn't be the purview of medical professionals, as we are amazingly bad at this, especially in immunologic terms, because it is difficult, at least for me and others in the field, to find the right framework for analogies. Teaching by analogy is a good enough communication strategy, but I still don't know the right framework for discussing the social context of human immunity without using immunologic terms. Looking at the literature of patient compliance overall is genuinely depressing and maybe is argument enough that science professionals need better communication techniques at the minimum.

---

First, I agree with everything you said. The ability to effectively communicate to large groups is a skill/talent that in a blanket statement requires people to actively participate in it at a vocational level. The number of people that can do it well without it being their principal job is remarkably small.

Second, the fact that human immunology is social requires a substantial bit of utilitarianism on the part of the populace in order to effectively combat widespread disease. For better or worse we live in a time when many individuals don't think that is a valid reason to shape their actions.

quote:

---

The point I used both studies for was to support this statement:

quote:
the vaccines reduce the chance of transmission

---

I have never disagreed with this statement. I do believe it is completely disingenuous though; a more accurate statement would be "We cannot stop the transmission of COVID, but being vaccinated may reduce transmission by 20-50%". But no one ever says that because the purpose of the above statement is to drive the narrative of everyone must get vaccinated, including both my children. The purpose of the vaccine is to protect the person receiving the vaccine, and the narrative of we have to be 100% vaccinated as a population is dangerous and flat out wrong.

I am a born skeptic, even more so after the last two years. But I at least try to see what the other side of the argument is, which is why I asked for studies. After pointing out pretty significant flaws, your third reply was instantly to hurl insults and act like you have all the answers, instead of addressing those flaws and engaging in a discussion. Gotta love anonymous internet tough guys!

Just to refresh, there have been three studies linked:
-One from May 2021, before we knew how quickly the effectiveness of the vaccine waned, and before we saw how ineffective they were against variants. This is an irrelevant study at this point in time, as irreverent as a similar statement made around that same time: "Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, put it this way: “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they don’t get sick,” she said on MSNBC. “That’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”"

-A non-peer reviewed study. DOA, not worth even talking about.

-A study that says nothing about transmission, only infection, but that doesn't stop our resident experts from making the claim "If it reduces the risk of infection and accelerates the viral clearance then it reduces the numbers of infected and reduces the time which an infected person can transmit. Both of those reduce the number of transmissions by vaccinated individuals in the population."

I wonder why the study didn't make similar claims? Because they actual require supporting data to make statements like that.

quote:

---

Our findings help to explain how and why the delta variant is being transmitted so effectively in populations with high vaccine coverage. Although current vaccines remain effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination alone is not sufficient to prevent all transmission of the delta variant in the household setting, where exposure is close and prolonged. Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant.

---

quote:

---

I do not - but then again I didn't do it for me, I did it for my immuno compromised wife, and older parents who have health issue

---

I’m in a similar situation. None of us vaccinated. All of us recovered. Two of which have cancer and another who is almost 90.

Still got the pure blood. Still got the anti bodies.

quote:

---

Is there a strong medical argument for vaccination of kids that doesn't largely boil down to protection for adults?

---

Probably not. The major danger from COVID infection for children is multisystem inflammatory syndrome but that is still fairly rare. The slightly underdeveloped immune system probably helps children avoid the worst effects.

quote:

---

I think I'm pretty even handed on this topic, but if it's out there it I don't think it's being presented presented to the public in a very compelling manner.

---

I don't think any part of the immunologic process has been presented to the public in a compelling manner. The wide variance in quality of infection too is exceedingly curious, with my inclination being that initial viral load has a lot to do with subsequent course regardless of comorbidities. There is some evidence that children can carry higher viral loads than adults, but I don't think there's been a definitive link established between viral loads and quality of infection, but that would be one possible angle that could be used if we had any cogent messaging at all.