So now that it’s FDA approved I assume Marcie is encouraging everyone to get vaccinated 
3 Likes
My understanding isn’t that she was holding out for more data/approval, merely that the risk mitigated wasn’t worth bothering, which is really a risk tolerance discussion.
But she’ll probably reply that Marcie is too young to be vaccinated yet.
1 Like
Looks like I will be getting a booster ASAP. Not to mention that the JNJ gives more T-Cell immunity than the other 2 shots anyway. T-Cell is longer lasting.
5 Likes
too young to be vaccinated, but she can drive! it’s really weird.
3 Likes
so does that mean the J&J posse is either going to be required that the booster be J&J or does that mean, regardless, a booster of J&J is good, so they might as well go with that? I’M SO CONFUSED. RACHEL, HELP ME!
im in J&J posse. I would consider getting a booster in mid nov (in front of worst season here for disease spread). That would be about 8 months after my initial shot.
I would likely seek out the J&J again (no good reason, just go with what I know)
2 Likes
Yeah, I read that.. since J&J gives more t-cell immunity, it complements a mRNA shot well. I think the only reason they’re not allowing mixing of doses is an “abundance of caution.”
2 Likes
So in the next few days I will likely end up debating an anti-vaxxer in some form or another. I am not a good debater, and feel like I will lose badly unless I prepare. So I was looking through some info and data and found a few weaknesses I don’t know about that they will hammer me on. So I have a few questions maybe somebody knows or could point me to a source?
Does COVID lead to pneumonia more often than the flu or common colds do?
Why would a third vaccine shot do anything if the reason efficacy is falling is because of variants? Wouldn’t we need a new/tweaked vaccine and not the same thing?
I’m guessing it’s not really because of the variants then, so why is efficacy falling? Do we just naturally lose antibodies over time?
pls help
1 Like
so, a shot of J&J combined with a shot of an mRNA might be even better than 3 shots of an mRNA, but they aren’t exploring it further or allowing it because…reasons?
1 Like
What’s the point of debating? If it’s not to get to some more refined truth then it’s just a ***** measuring contest
Or in other words, many of the answers could be “given imperfect information, this is what I went with, maybe something different works for you.” I don’t think you need to have all the answers to all the questions whether you’re keen to be vaccinated or not.
But to your question, it’s cost vs benefit. Efficacy can fall and a third shot still be worthwhile since marginal efficacy > cost of being vaccinated
1 Like
the entire internet is one big dick measuring contest when it comes down to it.
1 Like
Agreed. I’ve a lot of experience with those kinds of “debates” with brothers in law. Despite loving to debate I’d spend most of the time not saying much until they say something truly absurd.
1 Like
They believe in vaccine technology but don’t think COVID is a big enough deal to get the vaccine. They are worried that requirements to be vaccinated to get into venues/restaurants is a bad precedent for restrictions in the future based on other types of status. I want to convince them that the vaccine is worth getting whether you are afraid about future political implications or not.
But yeah probably pointless anyway
I don’t think their position is necessarily unreasonable, certainly not enough to be absurd/silly, particularly when you are able to speculate down the line to what current precedents allow in the future.
If it’s just for fun though I think it all hinges around risk tolerance. What’s your pre-vaccine hospitalization and mortality risk and how much risk is mitigated by taking the vaccine and how much cost did you have to incur to mitigate that risk.
Plus some residual “being a good citizen” positive.
Where it can get silly is if someone thinks there’s real risk of the vaccine changing their DNA or something which has no basis in reality unless they’re worrying about a fetus.
they are ‘being a good citizen’ for ‘standing up to the government’ in their mind.
I guess I’d ask how the anti-seatbelt-mandate fight is going then
3 Likes
Be prepared for them to reference Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (hhs.gov) and the thousands of deaths related to the vaccine there.
PolitiFact | No truth that VAERS system shows 6,000 “died because of” COVID-19 vaccines
I like to liken it to “with Covid” vs “from Covid” for these other deaths - yes they happened shortly after getting the vaccine, but should someone who died in a car accident but tested positive for Covid count as a Covid death? Same thing here.
Do they currently live in an area with these requirements?
This is a very chicken/egg type situation as resisting vaccination encourages more of these requirements, not less…
They are very good at acknowledging this kind of thing. We’ve debated in the past. They say VAERS is a sham because of what you said, but they also say COVID is a not a big deal because it’s all ‘with COVID’.
I’d just defer to meep’s excess mortality statistics by age. Then the vaccine is a question of reducing that risk. It’s certainly possible the reduced risk is very small because the risk is very small (i.e. if they’re young). But the cost of being vaccinated is vanishingly small so it’s almost always going to make sense at this point now that Pfizer is FDA approved and you can’t really make an argument about insufficient data.