Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Updates
-
I’m of the same mind as you, which is why I wrote that the post has been deleted even though it was factually correct based on our investigation. We could have treated it as spam and deleted it quietly, but we did not.
We want the poster to know why the post was removed, and supplied the relevant statistics. Otherwise, that post could very easily be misunderstood by others. We deleted the post because not everyone will read my rebuttal and we do not want to cause unnecessary panic amongst parents. -
ChiefKiasu\" post_id=\"2053885\" time=\"1640756769\" user_id=\"3:
While I agree that the statistics highlighted by you does indeed point out that the number of death cases of those teenagers would seem insignificant as compared to those who were vaccinated. I’ll like to assure that my post wasn’t meant to frighten or cause any unnecessary panic to parents here.
@sk8jack, we have removed your post as there has been complaints that the post only serves to frighten people. For context, the post listed 32 cases, of mostly teenagers from the VAERS database which is owned by National Vaccine Information Centre of the US. The teenagers purportedly died after being administered the Pfizer vaccine. There was also a baby who was thought to have died \"because it drank breast milk of the mother\" who just happened to have the Pfizer vaccine.
The fact is, even though the cases are true, you only listed 32 cases. While it may seem to be a lot of deaths, that is against a population of 332 million people. Even if you consider only teenagers between 12-19, there's 42 million of them. At least https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/adolescents-covid-vaccine-shot.html has already been vaccinated, which is 21 million. For comparison, Singapore's population is 6 million.
32 cases out of 21 million? I'll leave it to the reader to think whether it is significant.
Rather, I hope to present a clearer view for parents to weight the risks and benefits of vaccinating the children.
Let me present the logicality behind the choice to reject the mRNA vaccines that the media has conveniently left out.
Firstly, let us look at the supposed benefits of the mRNA vaccines in general.
Survival and Hospitalisation rates
The following data were extracted from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf.
With respect to survival rates, the vaccine increases the survival rates or decreases mortality rates of Covid-19 by a negligible amount, 0.204% and 4.435% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.
With respect to hospitalisation rates, the vaccine decreases hospitalisations rates by 0.168%, 2.168% and 10.237% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.
From the perspectives of the youths and the middle-aged, the benefits of the vaccines are minimal. The elderly, on the other hand, does seem to benefit from a small decrease in mortality rates and a substantial decrease in hospitalisation rates.
Having said that, any benefits is clearly better than no benefits at all. This is where we investigate the risks associated with the vaccine. Simply put, if the harm supersedes the benefits, the choice to not vaccinate is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate one.
Transmission Rates
When the vaccine was first released as a solution to Covid-19, it was advocated for its ability to reduce transmission rates or infectivity. The 95% efficacy of the vaccine has been used loosely to suggest the effectiveness of the vaccine with respect to reducing transmission.
This 95% figure is obtained through relative risk (https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/vaccine-makers-claim-covid-shots-are-95-effective-but-what-does-that-mean/). The absolute risk reduction of contracting Covid-19 in Pfizer’s trial is 0.70% with the vaccinated’s being 0.04% while the unvaccinated’s being 0.70%. However, it must be noted that as time progresses, it is very likely for this figure to increase as more and more people contract Covid-19. Be that as it may, it is definitely more apt to look at empirical date as the trial in no way clearly reveal transmission rates
Using data referenced in an https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf, it can be seen clearly in the last two columns of the table (pg13 of report) that the rates of contracting Covid-19 in the fully vaccinated is higher from age 40 to 80+ but is lower from ages 0 to 39. The conclusion is that the 95% efficacy cited in Pfizer’s trials are not valid at all; the highest efficacy pertains to those under 18 at 78%.
The verdict is that the vaccine seems to reduce infection rates in those below 40 years old and increase infection rates in those above 40 years old.
With the severity of Covid-19 being more pronounced within the aged, the increase in infection rates for those above 40 years old would lead to a more than proportionate increase in overall mortality due to an increase in infection rates while the decrease in infection rates in those below 40 years old would lead to a less than proportionate decrease in overall mortality rate.
Alternatively, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 suggests that there is little validity to support the claim that the unvaccinated are more prone to Covid-19 infections. In an analysis of the increase in Covid-19 cases in 68 countries, the study found “no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases in the last 7 days”. In fact, it was even stated that there might be a “marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”
If anything, transmission rates are a weak motivator for one to get vaccinated due to the insignificance of the reduction in transmission rates by the vaccine is any.
Possible Long-Term Adverse Effects
Perhaps the most glaring risk of the vaccine is the possibility of long-term effects. While it is true that the long-term effects of the vaccine are not confirmed, this is not the issue at hand. Rather, the point of contention is in the probability of the long-term effects. Because no one can say for sure regarding the existence of long term effects pertaining to the vaccine, it is only plausible to look at the probability of such effects instead.
Let us first look to the track records of the major stakeholders of the vaccine industry. It is not unreasonable to say that firms who are observed to be compliant with legal standards are more likely to be meticulous in the process of safeguarding the health interests of its consumers. After all, firms who actually prioritise the health interests of its consumers will never release a product that will exposes it consumers to probable risks.
It may come as a surprise, but the mentioned stakeholders, mainly Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca all have questionable legal records.
https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/.
AstraZeneca has been involved in similar cases of https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_371.htm and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing too.
J&J is no different being involved in https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations. One can read about lawsuits against J&J products like baby powder, blood thinning medication and diabetic medication here.
As for Moderna, they have https://fortune.com/2020/11/19/moderna-vaccine-distribution-lonza-swiss/ into https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/29/3-red-flags-for-modernas-potential-coronavirus-vac/?awc=12195_1640832520_386e88e889d797b20a1641810bfe58c3&campaign=78888&pc_source=TheMotleyFool_Awin&utm_source=aw&utm_campaign=78888 before. Yet somehow they were able to https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-designed-coronavirus-vaccine-in-2-days-2020-11?op=1 using the novel mRNA technology. Yes, you read that correctly, 2 days. While some articles, including the ones referenced above, would argue that this is because mRNA technology has been researched thoroughly in the past, is it really possible for a solution for new problems to be developed so quickly? Additionally, how can the vaccine be made with the coronavirus’ genetic sequence without the need for virus cultivation in labs when SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and purified yet?
As can be seen, the stakeholders of the Covid-19 vaccine industry do not have our health interests at heart; they prioritise profits instead. These people are willing to endanger the lives of even children if it means that they can earn even greater profits.
Can we trust these firms when they claim that long-term side effects are unlikely?
Only the most naïve of people would take their words for it; the criminal nature if such firms alone suggests that there is insufficient considerations into the long-term effects of the vaccine if at all.
There are some who will reject the information pertaining to lawsuits filed above on the basis that it is false or misinformation, which is utterly absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the documentation listed was quoted directly from the United States department of justice itself, no sane person would engage in fraud regarding the legal history of another as this would easily engender legal proceedings especially in the context of large corporate firms.
Others may attempt to rationalise by claiming that it is normal for firms to be involved in one or two issues with legality. This is ludicrous to the extreme too. Even if it is indeed true for such incidences to be common, in no way does the state of being ‘normal’ suggests that it Is correct.
As a matter of fact, it should be stressed that such therapies are at their experimental stages. Clinical trials for the https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1, and AstraZeneca are estimated to conclude in May 2, 2023, October 27, 2022, and February 14, 2023, respectively.
Contrary to what some news media tell you about the state of being ‘experimental’ (the fact that this means nothing as the vaccine is thoroughly tested), the reason why the mentioned vacines are experimental is simple – the effects, most notably, the long-term effects of the vaccines are not tested yet. This is why more ‘experimentation’ is even needed in the first place.
From the above, any reasonable thinker would agree that the threat of possible long-term adverse effects are very probable.
Natural Immunity
Natural immunity is a concept that is almost never covered by mainstream media. We are all flooded with information about the vaccine’s efficacy so much so that many of us seem to have forgotten about natural immunity.
Note that natural immunity refers to the immunity one develops after exposure to Covid-19. It has nothing to do with one’s initial immune response to Covid-19. So how effective is natural immunity really?
An https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13520 from Austria suggests that natural immunity is indeed effective. It is observed that out of 14,840 Covid-19 survivors, only 40 were re-infected (0.27%) in the time period of over more than half a year. In contrasts, there were 253,581 infections (2.85%) in the remaining general population of 8,885,640 in the same time period as above. This translates to a 91% reduction in the odds of a re-infection compared to the odds of a first infection. It was even stated in the study that “protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.”
This observation is corroborated by a https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf. It is mentioned in the study that of 2,579 individuals who had survived Covid-19, none of them were re-infected in the 5 months period where they were under monitoring. Of these 2,579 individuals, 1,359 were unvaccinated. Once again, the efficacy of natural immunity appears to be far superior and efficacious even when one is unvaccinated.
If there is anything that can attest to the superiority of natural immunity, it would be this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf where the delta variant is relatively more dominant.
The study compares two groups of people from the 1st of June 2021 to the 14th of August 2021, with the first being “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees” who were individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and the other being previously infected individuals who are partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The study concluded that:
• The risk of infection was 13 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
• Taking into account the influence of comorbidities, the risk of symptomatic Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
• The risk of hospitalisation was 6.7 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
The above indisputably highlights that natural immunity is leaps and bounds ahead of any protection the current vaccines can offer.
While the vaccine offers temporary protection (arguably insignificant depending on age groups) against Covid-19, it would seem that the protection procured through natural immunity is much more permanent.
A study investigating the presence of neutralising antibodies in survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic found that virus-neutralizing antibodies remains functional and effective against the 1918 influenza pandemic strain for many decades after exposure. In fact, this effectiveness extends well into the tenth decade of life; in other words, natural immunity for this strain lasts a lifetime.
Recent research into natural immunity for Covid-19 have shown that infection to Covid-19 will likely engender long-term immunity.
If we are to think about this logically, the concept of a potent and long-term natural immunity is not such a far-fetched idea. After all, if it were true that natural immunity is ineffective and temporary, then would the entire human race not be already plagued by innumerable diseases from the past since the usage of medicine for treatment was not as robust in the past?
As seen, natural immunity is both more effective and enduring than ‘protection’ from vaccination.
Conclusion
For a disease that is largely unthreatening, is the choice to obtain relatively insignificant protection in the near future worth the probable risk of long-term effects especially when exposure to this minor threat promises relatively far greater and longer-lasting protection?
Furthermore, while the short-term adverse effects of the vaccine might be rare or unthreatening, does the choice to repeatedly go for booster shots (perhaps indefinitely) not significantly increases the odds of these adverse effects? Would it not be wiser to just procure natural immunity instead?
Of course, one’s decision to vaccinate is their own autonomy; the reason for one to vaccinate is not at all undermined by the reasons for one to not vaccinate, both can be legitimate.
As parents, we would definitely prioritise the safety of our children as the utmost concern. After all, these are young lives we are talking about, and they still have a long road ahead. As such, I hope that parents are able to make informed decisions on whether to inoculate their children with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. -
sk8jack\" post_id=\"2053990\" time=\"1640833960\" user_id=\"196527:
Ok, speaking of natural immunity, ok, say your reasoning is true. So, rather than getting a vaccine, you are suggesting we should just go find someone who is currently covid +ve and ask them to sneeze at you? And then pray that we would have very mild symptoms and no serious long covid effect? No thanks, I will take my chance with the vaccines.
While I agree that the statistics highlighted by you does indeed point out that the number of death cases of those teenagers would seem insignificant as compared to those who were vaccinated. I’ll like to assure that my post wasn’t meant to frighten or cause any unnecessary panic to parents here.
Rather, I hope to present a clearer view for parents to weight the risks and benefits of vaccinating the children.
Let me present the logicality behind the choice to reject the mRNA vaccines that the media has conveniently left out.
Firstly, let us look at the supposed benefits of the mRNA vaccines in general.
Survival and Hospitalisation rates
The following data were extracted from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf.
With respect to survival rates, the vaccine increases the survival rates or decreases mortality rates of Covid-19 by a negligible amount, 0.204% and 4.435% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.
With respect to hospitalisation rates, the vaccine decreases hospitalisations rates by 0.168%, 2.168% and 10.237% for the youths (0-29 yrs), the middle-aged (29-49 yrs), and the elderly (50 yrs and above) respectively.
From the perspectives of the youths and the middle-aged, the benefits of the vaccines are minimal. The elderly, on the other hand, does seem to benefit from a small decrease in mortality rates and a substantial decrease in hospitalisation rates.
Having said that, any benefits is clearly better than no benefits at all. This is where we investigate the risks associated with the vaccine. Simply put, if the harm supersedes the benefits, the choice to not vaccinate is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate one.
Transmission Rates
When the vaccine was first released as a solution to Covid-19, it was advocated for its ability to reduce transmission rates or infectivity. The 95% efficacy of the vaccine has been used loosely to suggest the effectiveness of the vaccine with respect to reducing transmission.
This 95% figure is obtained through relative risk (https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/05/06/vaccine-makers-claim-covid-shots-are-95-effective-but-what-does-that-mean/). The absolute risk reduction of contracting Covid-19 in Pfizer’s trial is 0.70% with the vaccinated’s being 0.04% while the unvaccinated’s being 0.70%. However, it must be noted that as time progresses, it is very likely for this figure to increase as more and more people contract Covid-19. Be that as it may, it is definitely more apt to look at empirical date as the trial in no way clearly reveal transmission rates
Using data referenced in an https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf, it can be seen clearly in the last two columns of the table (pg13 of report) that the rates of contracting Covid-19 in the fully vaccinated is higher from age 40 to 80+ but is lower from ages 0 to 39. The conclusion is that the 95% efficacy cited in Pfizer’s trials are not valid at all; the highest efficacy pertains to those under 18 at 78%.
The verdict is that the vaccine seems to reduce infection rates in those below 40 years old and increase infection rates in those above 40 years old.
With the severity of Covid-19 being more pronounced within the aged, the increase in infection rates for those above 40 years old would lead to a more than proportionate increase in overall mortality due to an increase in infection rates while the decrease in infection rates in those below 40 years old would lead to a less than proportionate decrease in overall mortality rate.
Alternatively, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 suggests that there is little validity to support the claim that the unvaccinated are more prone to Covid-19 infections. In an analysis of the increase in Covid-19 cases in 68 countries, the study found “no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases in the last 7 days”. In fact, it was even stated that there might be a “marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”
If anything, transmission rates are a weak motivator for one to get vaccinated due to the insignificance of the reduction in transmission rates by the vaccine is any.
Possible Long-Term Adverse Effects
Perhaps the most glaring risk of the vaccine is the possibility of long-term effects. While it is true that the long-term effects of the vaccine are not confirmed, this is not the issue at hand. Rather, the point of contention is in the probability of the long-term effects. Because no one can say for sure regarding the existence of long term effects pertaining to the vaccine, it is only plausible to look at the probability of such effects instead.
Let us first look to the track records of the major stakeholders of the vaccine industry. It is not unreasonable to say that firms who are observed to be compliant with legal standards are more likely to be meticulous in the process of safeguarding the health interests of its consumers. After all, firms who actually prioritise the health interests of its consumers will never release a product that will exposes it consumers to probable risks.
It may come as a surprise, but the mentioned stakeholders, mainly Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca all have questionable legal records.
https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/.
AstraZeneca has been involved in similar cases of https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_371.htm and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing too.
J&J is no different being involved in https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations. One can read about lawsuits against J&J products like baby powder, blood thinning medication and diabetic medication here.
As for Moderna, they have https://fortune.com/2020/11/19/moderna-vaccine-distribution-lonza-swiss/ into https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/29/3-red-flags-for-modernas-potential-coronavirus-vac/?awc=12195_1640832520_386e88e889d797b20a1641810bfe58c3&campaign=78888&pc_source=TheMotleyFool_Awin&utm_source=aw&utm_campaign=78888 before. Yet somehow they were able to https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-designed-coronavirus-vaccine-in-2-days-2020-11?op=1 using the novel mRNA technology. Yes, you read that correctly, 2 days. While some articles, including the ones referenced above, would argue that this is because mRNA technology has been researched thoroughly in the past, is it really possible for a solution for new problems to be developed so quickly? Additionally, how can the vaccine be made with the coronavirus’ genetic sequence without the need for virus cultivation in labs when SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and purified yet?
As can be seen, the stakeholders of the Covid-19 vaccine industry do not have our health interests at heart; they prioritise profits instead. These people are willing to endanger the lives of even children if it means that they can earn even greater profits.
Can we trust these firms when they claim that long-term side effects are unlikely?
Only the most naïve of people would take their words for it; the criminal nature if such firms alone suggests that there is insufficient considerations into the long-term effects of the vaccine if at all.
There are some who will reject the information pertaining to lawsuits filed above on the basis that it is false or misinformation, which is utterly absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the documentation listed was quoted directly from the United States department of justice itself, no sane person would engage in fraud regarding the legal history of another as this would easily engender legal proceedings especially in the context of large corporate firms.
Others may attempt to rationalise by claiming that it is normal for firms to be involved in one or two issues with legality. This is ludicrous to the extreme too. Even if it is indeed true for such incidences to be common, in no way does the state of being ‘normal’ suggests that it Is correct.
As a matter of fact, it should be stressed that such therapies are at their experimental stages. Clinical trials for the https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1, and AstraZeneca are estimated to conclude in May 2, 2023, October 27, 2022, and February 14, 2023, respectively.
Contrary to what some news media tell you about the state of being ‘experimental’ (the fact that this means nothing as the vaccine is thoroughly tested), the reason why the mentioned vacines are experimental is simple – the effects, most notably, the long-term effects of the vaccines are not tested yet. This is why more ‘experimentation’ is even needed in the first place.
From the above, any reasonable thinker would agree that the threat of possible long-term adverse effects are very probable.
Natural Immunity
Natural immunity is a concept that is almost never covered by mainstream media. We are all flooded with information about the vaccine’s efficacy so much so that many of us seem to have forgotten about natural immunity.
Note that natural immunity refers to the immunity one develops after exposure to Covid-19. It has nothing to do with one’s initial immune response to Covid-19. So how effective is natural immunity really?
An https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13520 from Austria suggests that natural immunity is indeed effective. It is observed that out of 14,840 Covid-19 survivors, only 40 were re-infected (0.27%) in the time period of over more than half a year. In contrasts, there were 253,581 infections (2.85%) in the remaining general population of 8,885,640 in the same time period as above. This translates to a 91% reduction in the odds of a re-infection compared to the odds of a first infection. It was even stated in the study that “protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.”
This observation is corroborated by a https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf. It is mentioned in the study that of 2,579 individuals who had survived Covid-19, none of them were re-infected in the 5 months period where they were under monitoring. Of these 2,579 individuals, 1,359 were unvaccinated. Once again, the efficacy of natural immunity appears to be far superior and efficacious even when one is unvaccinated.
If there is anything that can attest to the superiority of natural immunity, it would be this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf where the delta variant is relatively more dominant.
The study compares two groups of people from the 1st of June 2021 to the 14th of August 2021, with the first being “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees” who were individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and the other being previously infected individuals who are partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The study concluded that:
• The risk of infection was 13 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
• Taking into account the influence of comorbidities, the risk of symptomatic Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
• The risk of hospitalisation was 6.7 times higher among the vaccinated (SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees) relative to those with natural immunity.
The above indisputably highlights that natural immunity is leaps and bounds ahead of any protection the current vaccines can offer.
While the vaccine offers temporary protection (arguably insignificant depending on age groups) against Covid-19, it would seem that the protection procured through natural immunity is much more permanent.
A study investigating the presence of neutralising antibodies in survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic found that virus-neutralizing antibodies remains functional and effective against the 1918 influenza pandemic strain for many decades after exposure. In fact, this effectiveness extends well into the tenth decade of life; in other words, natural immunity for this strain lasts a lifetime.
Recent research into natural immunity for Covid-19 have shown that infection to Covid-19 will likely engender long-term immunity.
If we are to think about this logically, the concept of a potent and long-term natural immunity is not such a far-fetched idea. After all, if it were true that natural immunity is ineffective and temporary, then would the entire human race not be already plagued by innumerable diseases from the past since the usage of medicine for treatment was not as robust in the past?
As seen, natural immunity is both more effective and enduring than ‘protection’ from vaccination.
Conclusion
For a disease that is largely unthreatening, is the choice to obtain relatively insignificant protection in the near future worth the probable risk of long-term effects especially when exposure to this minor threat promises relatively far greater and longer-lasting protection?
Furthermore, while the short-term adverse effects of the vaccine might be rare or unthreatening, does the choice to repeatedly go for booster shots (perhaps indefinitely) not significantly increases the odds of these adverse effects? Would it not be wiser to just procure natural immunity instead?
Of course, one’s decision to vaccinate is their own autonomy; the reason for one to vaccinate is not at all undermined by the reasons for one to not vaccinate, both can be legitimate.
As parents, we would definitely prioritise the safety of our children as the utmost concern. After all, these are young lives we are talking about, and they still have a long road ahead. As such, I hope that parents are able to make informed decisions on whether to inoculate their children with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. -
@sk8jack, I’m just curious.
Did you get your BCG shot at Primary 6? That horrible injection which gives you a permanent scar, but we all had to take it, anyway.
Have you ever had a flu shot? I had mine a couple of months ago, without even knowing what it was when I went for my regular appointment at the clinic.
What are these things? What do they do? I don’t know because I’m not a doctor, and even if I am a doctor, I don’t think I’ll know, anyway, because the science is really complicated. But I have confidence in them, because I know they have been given to everyone. I’m sure there will be some people with severe side effects, but these are far too small to count, and chances are good that I’d be ok.
I can understand people’s hesitation to take something "new" into their bodies. It’s a leap of faith. I wouldn’t want to be amongst the first to take any vaccine. But if 100s of millions have already taken it, to say it is tried and tested is a monumental understatement. -
It’s a personal decision that the parent(s) have to make, based on what they think is best for their child(ren). Nobody is forcing them to make a decision either way.
I have made my choice for my child. It doesn’t mean that I have to go around persuading others to do the same. -
There’s must be a reason why it is not a mandatory vaccination program. Like many have shared, it is a personal/family decision.
-
I recall some individual was POFMA-ed for posting some VAERS info last month.
MOH:
...any member of the public may report adverse events and deaths to the VAERS system, regardless whether it is caused by vaccines or other factors. The reports are not required to be verified. They often lack details and sometimes contain errors. No proof is required that the adverse event or death was caused by the vaccine. And adverse events need not be serious; they include mild side effects such as rash/cold/headaches.
https://www.gov.sg/article/factually291121 -
Do not spread falsehood or magnify any cases or obtuse. Make informed choices fr official sources. MOH & SG official channels hv the public’s interests at heart, so don’t live in fear or let doubts immobilize u to inaction.
Autopsy performed on boy who died 75 days after Covid-19 jab; public urged not to speculate on death
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/autopsy-performed-on-boy-who-died-75-days-after-covid-19-jab-public-urged-not-to-speculate-on-death -
Covid-19 in kids is not innocuous.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-warning-symptoms-children-kids-hospitalized-record-numbers-rcna10741?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2787495/jama_levy_2021_ld_210084_1640010983.63662.pdf
Particularly in the unvaccinated.... -
Walao eh... they just hit 1M cases/ day then classify us under unknown Level 4.
Actually, why is the disease level here \"unknown\"?
The number of cases are reported, known & even broken into Omicron or not... kinda weird.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/us-reclassifies-covid-19-travel-advisory-for-singapore-to-unknown
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Recent Topics
Statistics