this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
502 points (98.5% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2635 readers
4 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like, on the one end, this is exactly the kind of shit that gets hyper-inflated. The mortality rate of COVID is closer to 2000 cases in 100k than 26.7. And contraction of COVID raises long term risk of heart issues as a consequence. The herd immunity to grants means that, if you can successfully identify high risk individuals, they're insulated from transmission by the bulk of the population getting vaccinated. So the fear of heart issues is mitigated only when everyone else gets the jab.
On the other, I think there's a criticism that we haven't continued to invest in improvements to the mRNA treatment now that we have a simple panacea. And this doesn't become criticism of vaccination. It becomes a criticism of vaccine skepticism undermining funding of new iterations of the treatment.
At some point, you can't keep coming back to the debate table in the middle of a pandemic. You need to move quickly and confidently, rather than re-litigating age old talking points if you want to minimize total public harm.
That might mean ramping up vaccine distribution. It might mean ramping up quarantine measures. It might mean dramatically expanding the availability of testing and contact tracing and improving access to public health care.
But when we've embraced a "cheapest, least economically invasive solution" policy method, that means we're fully on board with the vaccine whether its entirely safe or not. Because what we really care for, in the US, is economic growth. And a jab from even a mediocre vaccine solution is going to be vastly more friendly to the economy than doing nothing or doing a more traditional quarantine approach.
Ok. So my post was bait. I specifically chose a statistic of young males and myocarditis.
As expected you misread and responded quoting all age mortality.
This was the point I was trying to make. Honest discussions are impossible.
Above a certain age, yes.
Your link is not focused on young males.
In the specific case of myocarditis in young males, the Pfizer vaccine is higher risk.
True for vaccines in general, but for omicron (the dominant strain when most vaccines were given) transmission rates immediately after infection were the same, whether vaccinated or not.
Not empirically true for covid vaccines
Disagree. mRNA is now an accepted tool and is being explored for a huge number of medical applications.
There was no debate during the pandemic. Any criticism was silenced as being anti vaccine.
In public. But this shouldn't apply to doctors, scientists and other experts.
Cheapest would have been open sourcing the Oxford vaccine. Bill Gates stopped that from happening. "As a CEPI founder he had leverage"
Yes. There is no money in an open source, cost of production vaccine, but there is a LOT of money in future mRNA applications.
EDIT: Links added.