Science still not settled on Natural Immunity vs Vaccines

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So nothing on the third shot yet.  And no safety concerns identified.

No brainer to get them vaxxed.  Stop implying there are issues when there aren't.

And this has nothing to do with "fear and control" so maybe people can put their tinfoil away now?

[pacearrow02]

So nothing on the third shot yet.  And no safety concerns identified.

No brainer to get them vaxxed.  Stop implying there are issues when there aren't.

And this has nothing to do with "fear and control" so maybe people can put their tinfoil away now?

Never said there was a safety issue, you're making some pretty strange leaps and accusations. What my OP said was it didn't make a lick of difference in efficacy regarding protecting kids, which is true and stated as such on the Pfizer press release.

It is your right Fluffy to get your kids blindly vaccinated without knowing what a 3 dose regimen efficacy/safety profile looks like.  It you do the 2 dose regimen you're just wasting you and your kids time.

I will choose to wait. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I have no kids that young.  But if I did, I wouldn't hesitate because I am not an anti-science moron.

But you be you.  You've been wrong repeatedly on this topic from the beginning, but apparently that doesn't stop you from continuing to be wrong. 

[pacearrow02]

I have no kids that young.  But if I did, I wouldn't hesitate because I am not an anti-science moron.

But you be you.  You've been wrong repeatedly on this topic from the beginning, but apparently that doesn't stop you from continuing to be wrong.

Ahhh no dog in the fight, that explains it. You always say I'm wrong but never back it up with anything other then you saying it.  Start calling you Ned Price. 

[Lighthouse 84]

I have no kids that young.  But if I did, I wouldn't hesitate because I am not an anti-science moron.

But you be you.  You've been wrong repeatedly on this topic from the beginning, but apparently that doesn't stop you from continuing to be wrong.

Choosing to not blindly vaccinate a small child with a vaccine that hasn't been (a) long term tested on small children, and (b) proven to be of any benefit for small children, doesn't make someone an anti-science moron.   

[Pakuni]

Choosing to not blindly vaccinate a small child with a vaccine that hasn't been (a) long term tested on small children, and (b) proven to be of any benefit for small children, doesn't make someone an anti-science moron.   

"Blindly"

[tower912]

Nothing blind about it.  15 y/o has 3 shots on board.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

People who still say "blindly" about this vaccine.  🤡🤡🤡

[cheebs09]

Nothing blind about it.  15 y/o has 3 shots on board.

I think the discussion is more about under 5. I don't know if anything definitive has been decided on it yet.

[forgetful]

I think the discussion is more about under 5. I don't know if anything definitive has been decided on it yet.

It hasn't even been voted on by the FDA yet.

[pacearrow02]

It hasn't even been voted on by the FDA yet.

Dont tell Fluffy that you science denying mouth breather!!

[Pakuni]

I think the discussion is more about under 5. I don't know if anything definitive has been decided on it yet.

The Pfizer study of the vaccine in children under 5 began nearly 10 months ago and has involved 4,500 test subjects at 90 sites in four countries.
The results are then reviewed by an independent committee and then the vaccine would need FDA approval before being given on a widespread basis. And I'm sure I'm failing to mention numerous other steps along the way.
There's nothing "blind" about this.

[pacearrow02]

The Pfizer study of the vaccine in children under 5 began nearly 10 months ago and has involved 4,500 test subjects at 90 sites in four countries.
The results are then reviewed by an independent committee and then the vaccine would need FDA approval before being given on a widespread basis. And I'm sure I'm failing to mention numerous other steps along the way.
There's nothing "blind" about this.

And that process has shown next to no efficacy with two shots which is why they are now looking at a 3rd shot.  To start vaccinating your 2 year old now in hopes that the 3rd shot shows efficacy without knowing if it will or knowing if 3 shots is even safe would be in my estimation going at this blindly.  The blind part being having no idea what that 3rd shot has in store as it relates to safety and effectiveness.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And that process has shown next to no efficacy with two shots which is why they are now looking at a 3rd shot.  To start vaccinating your 2 year old now in hopes that the 3rd shot shows efficacy without knowing if it will or knowing if 3 shots is even safe would be in my estimation going at this blindly.  The blind part being having no idea what that 3rd shot has in store as it relates to safety and effectiveness.

Keep backpedaling 🤡

[Pakuni]

And that process has shown next to no efficacy with two shots which is why they are now looking at a 3rd shot.  To start vaccinating your 2 year old now in hopes that the 3rd shot shows efficacy without knowing if it will or knowing if 3 shots is even safe would be in my estimation going at this blindly.  The blind part being having no idea what that 3rd shot has in store as it relates to safety and effectiveness.

So, not "blindly" then?

[Lighthouse 84]

The Pfizer study of the vaccine in children under 5 began nearly 10 months ago and has involved 4,500 test subjects at 90 sites in four countries.
The results are then reviewed by an independent committee and then the vaccine would need FDA approval before being given on a widespread basis. And I'm sure I'm failing to mention numerous other steps along the way.
There's nothing "blind" about this.

and so far the results say it's not making a difference on children under 5. And it's not  voted on yet by the FDA. And there certainly is no long term study on the effects on 5 and under.  But if one doesn't automatically get their small child vaccinated, they're a moron or a clown?  Nope.

[pacearrow02]

So, not "blindly" then?

Fluffy said he'd have his young's kids vaccinated already if he had them.  Without knowing what the full regimen is or the efficacy associated with that, that's pretty blind but call it visually impaired if you will.

[MUfan12]

My wife and I were discussing it the other day. We have two under 4. Both of us are vaxxed and boosted, so definitely not "anti science."

We don't know what we'll do yet. If there's little to no demonstrated effectiveness, and them being low-risk, I won't be in a rush to get them shots.

[Pakuni]

and so far the results say it's not making a difference on children under 5. And it's not  voted on yet by the FDA. And there certainly is no long term study on the effects on 5 and under.  But if one doesn't automatically get their small child vaccinated, they're a moron or a clown?  Nope.

The fact that you know all this, as part of a lengthy process that's all out there for public consumption, proves how moronic and clownish it is to suggest that one would be taking the vaccine "blindly."
There literally is, and will continue to be, reams of research at your disposal (and not the Facebook kind so many anti-vaxxers prefer these days).

[Pakuni]

Fluffy said he'd have his young's kids vaccinated already if he had them.  Without knowing what the full regimen is or the efficacy associated with that, that's pretty blind but call it visually impaired if you will.

[Lighthouse 84]

The fact that you know all this, as part of a lengthy process that's all out there for public consumption, proves how moronic and clownish it is to suggest that one would be taking the vaccine "blindly."
There literally is, and will continue to be, reams of research at your disposal (and not the Facebook kind so many anti-vaxxers prefer these days).

I don't have young kids anymore so I don't have to worry about it.  It if I did to give your small child the vaccine, in spite of having all that information is moronic. And I agree, that when the reams of actual research is are available, views may change.   But until then, a parent should make that decision for their youngun, hey?

[pacearrow02]

The fact that you know all this, as part of a lengthy process that's all out there for public consumption, proves how moronic and clownish it is to suggest that one would be taking the vaccine "blindly."
There literally is, and will continue to be, reams of research at your disposal (and not the Facebook kind so many anti-vaxxers prefer these days).

Reams of research on 5 and under?

[Pakuni]

Reams of research on 5 and under?

10 months worth.

[forgetful]

and so far the results say it's not making a difference on children under 5. And it's not  voted on yet by the FDA. And there certainly is no long term study on the effects on 5 and under.  But if one doesn't automatically get their small child vaccinated, they're a moron or a clown?  Nope.

The data is clear for those under 2. It is an effective and safe vaccine.

[MUDPT]

and so far the results say it's not making a difference on children under 5. And it's not  voted on yet by the FDA. And there certainly is no long term study on the effects on 5 and under.  But if one doesn't automatically get their small child vaccinated, they're a moron or a clown?  Nope.

This is wrong. Effectiveness was down to around 50%, which was disappointing compared to the adult mRNA results. 50% is still considered within the range of an effective vaccine.

My 5 and then 8 year old, were vaccinated 3 days after the vaccines were available in November. Everyone who works in the medical field with us, was the same. All of our colleagues with children under 5 are eagerly waiting for the next approval.