Corona Virus Vaccine Poll

[Tzimis]

I sympathize with you. However, I don't work and see few others, except for in church or at the store. I know just enough about medicine and vaccines and this virus to probably be dangerous (at least some here might think so, anyway ). But I'll still take my chances without the vaccine. If there is something like a 99.6% survival rate (or close to that), that's good enough for me to refrain from being a guinea pig, ethical issues aside. And then there's the whole herd immunity, which we have probably reached in many places, issue. If it gets to the point where I MUST have the vaccine in order to even gain entry into a church or a store for supplies, I may have to re-think it. As I'm much, much closer to the grave than the cradle, there's probably not much chance of me suffering any currently unknown long-term effects of the vaccine. And, as I must die from something, sometime....

I would be careful if I were you. I seen the damage of what the virus can do first hand.
If you are up in age. I suggest you get vaccinated immediately. Once everything reopens. Its not a matter of if you will get the disease. Because you're going to get it.
Its that contagious.

 

[J Michael]

I would be careful if I were you. I seen the damage of what the virus can do first hand.
If you are up in age. I suggest you get vaccinated immediately. Once everything reopens. Its not a matter of if you will get the disease. Because you're going to get it.
Its that contagious.

I appreciate your concern. Thank you. It is contagious. It's also much less contagious in people who are relatively healthy, have high levels of Vit. D-3, take zinc, and lots of Vit. C. Besides, I'm pretty sure I already had it, in Jan. 2020--a bad cold/flu unlike any I'd had previously. But maybe not. Nonetheless, survival rates are over 99% and the hugest majority of cases are pretty benign and mild. You're also forgetting about herd immunity which we've probably already reached. And, if the vaccines are all they're made out to be, which I have my doubts about, then most people (those vaccinated, anyway) won't be spreading it and if I somehow get it, others will be protected. Right? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? There are also numerous cheap and pretty readily available conventional therapeutics available, not to mention that dreaded quackery, homeopathy, which I happen to know just a little about having practiced and been involved with it for over 30 years. So, again...I'll take the risk. And if I get it and die from it, well...you (and Arachne) can be the first to say, "I told you so!"

I'm not being cavalier. I'm weighing risk vs. reward for my particular situation and circumstances. And I just really hate being bullied, however subtle the bullying is.

Death is also contagious...and inevitable. Most of time I'm not afraid of it (I have my moments, though). It's coming for us all. If it's in the form of Covid for me, well, so be it. On the other hand, I could just drop dead in the next few minutes from a heart attack or stroke.

 

[idahoon1]

Thank you for all the answers - as I am really disturbed with all the moral issues of covid...

For over a year I participate in liturgies (as well as other about 300 people from my parish), every week - no masks, no social distancing, kissing icons, greeting each other with a hug.

If it was true, what they keep telling us showing coffins and sick people - if that was true, we all should have been dead three times already (God forbid!). And nothing like that happened. Yes, people get sick - they develop flu-like symptoms, sometimes with pneumonia; but they were having identical issues each year before covid! They are told they are sick based on a faulty test (and I know they are faulty from the first hand, from the doctors who use them in hospital wards). The test more than often give false-positive results.

On the other hand, we hear of people with lung transplant (although we haven't met any of them). Most of our friends suffer high fever and sometimes loss of smell. And they recover quickly. Old people keep dying as they are refused to be treated in hospitals. And when they finally are taken into hospital, it's too late. This is what we see around us all the time, it's not a TV-produced pseudo-reality.

Every time I attend the Divine Litrugy ignoring what I hear on TV i feel like I am putting my Lord God to the test.... And I am extremely sorry for that.

On the other hand - imagine that a grup of more than 300 people live against covid for over a year and nobody got hurt.... I am not saying that people don't get covid (or whatever it is), but they get back to health in a few weeks.

I have never had so many moral dilemas as recently....

 

[J Michael]

Thank you for all the answers - as I am really disturbed with all the moral issues of covid...

For over a year I participate in liturgies (as well as other about 300 people from my parish), every week - no masks, no social distancing, kissing icons, greeting each other with a hug.

If it was true, what they keep telling us showing coffins and sick people - if that was true, we all should have been dead three times already (God forbid!). And nothing like that happened. Yes, people get sick - they develop flu-like symptoms, sometimes with pneumonia; but they were having identical issues each year before covid! They are told they are sick based on a faulty test (and I know they are faulty from the first hand, from the doctors who use them in hospital wards). The test more than often give false-positive results.

On the other hand, we hear of people with lung transplant (although we haven't met any of them). Most of our friends suffer high fever and sometimes loss of smell. And they recover quickly. Old people keep dying as they are refused to be treated in hospitals. And when they finally are taken into hospital, it's too late. This is what we see around us all the time, it's not a TV-produced pseudo-reality.

Every time I attend the Divine Litrugy ignoring what I hear on TV i feel like I am putting my Lord God to the test.... And I am extremely sorry for that.

On the other hand - imagine that a grup of more than 300 people live against covid for over a year and nobody got hurt.... I am not saying that people don't get covid (or whatever it is), but they get back to health in a few weeks.

I have never had so many moral dilemas as recently....

So, what precisely are your moral dilemmas? The only one I see from what you've written is possibly putting God to the test by attending the DL and ignoring what you hear on t.v. Ignoring what you hear on t.v. is quite probably a good thing for the most part. You get bias, outright lies, distortions of the truth, partial truths, and lies by omission. And that's not just regarding the "pandemic", either.

Is God telling you to get the vaccination? Is the Church requiring it? Does Holy Scripture demand it?

It sounds like you have a pretty realistic take on what's going on. Are you under the age of 80 and/or without underlying "co-morbidities" such as gross obesity, diabetes, immune compromise? Are you relatively healthy? Well....you know my take on all of that! Is your work requiring you to get the vaccine? If so, is there so accommodation you can reach with them that doesn't involve getting the vaccine if you don't want it?

And, by the way, congrats to you and your church for staying healthy throughout all of this!! Not that it's really all that difficult to do, really.

 

[idahoon1]

Just to clarify - I was talking about the Holy Eucharist, it's not like we are ignoring the recommendations. There are less people inside, all the glass covering the icons is regurarly disinfected and so on.

Every one is terrified with what we see in the news but despite that, Holy Communion is celebrated without masks.

 

[Tzimis]

I appreciate your concern. Thank you. It is contagious. It's also much less contagious in people who are relatively healthy, have high levels of Vit. D-3, take zinc, and lots of Vit. C. Besides, I'm pretty sure I already had it, in Jan. 2020--a bad cold/flu unlike any I'd had previously. But maybe not. Nonetheless, survival rates are over 99% and the hugest majority of cases are pretty benign and mild. You're also forgetting about herd immunity which we've probably already reached. And, if the vaccines are all they're made out to be, which I have my doubts about, then most people (those vaccinated, anyway) won't be spreading it and if I somehow get it, others will be protected. Right? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? There are also numerous cheap and pretty readily available conventional therapeutics available, not to mention that dreaded quackery, homeopathy, which I happen to know just a little about having practiced and been involved with it for over 30 years. So, again...I'll take the risk. And if I get it and die from it, well...you (and Arachne) can be the first to say, "I told you so!"

I'm not being cavalier. I'm weighing risk vs. reward for my particular situation and circumstances. And I just really hate being bullied, however subtle the bullying is.

Death is also contagious...and inevitable. Most of time I'm not afraid of it (I have my moments, though). It's coming for us all. If it's in the form of Covid for me, well, so be it. On the other hand, I could just drop dead in the next few minutes from a heart attack or stroke.

It's your body. Just don't say you weren't warned. You're right, Most people will survive it. But, there is a good portion of the elderly population, that it hits like a ton of bricks.
A small jab isn't going to hurt you.
The cure isn't as bad as the disease.
Worse, would be if you survived it in bad shape and someone close to you needs to support you afterwards.

 

[J Michael]

Interesting article from France (the link will take you to the full article--it was too long to post here):

French drug assessment center demands removal of all four widely used COVID vaccines - LifeSite

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.

www.lifesitenews.com

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.

Text shortened to conform with forum rules. A one-paragraph excerpt is sufficient. Thanks. --Ainnir

 

[PorphyriosK]

Interesting article from France (the link will take you to the full article--it was too long to post here):

French drug assessment center demands removal of all four widely used COVID vaccines - LifeSite

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.

www.lifesitenews.com

April 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.

Anything from LifeSite will immediately be shot down here.

Text shortened to conform with forum rules. Thanks. --Ainnir

 

[J Michael]

Anything from LifeSite will immediately be shot down here.

Because it's Catholic perceived by some to be right-wing propaganda? That doesn't surprise me. But they're just the messenger, as it were. Why shoot down the messenger? I doubt that the CTIAP in France is part of the Catholic Church any right-wing conspiracy. There is a link in the article to the original French report...in French, if that would make someone happier.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Because it's Catholic? That doesn't surprise me. But they're just the messenger, as it were. Why shoot down the messenger? I doubt that the CTIAP in France is part of the Catholic Church. There is a link in the article to the original French report...in French, if that would make someone happier.

Not because it's Catholic. It is perceived to be right wing propaganda. This isn't my own perception, I was just warning you.

 

[J Michael]

Not because it's Catholic. It is perceived to be right wing propaganda. This isn't my own perception, I was just warning you.

Okay, thanks! I appreciate that. I've edited my post to reflect that.

 

[Arachne]

LifeSiteNews is owned by the Conservative Campaign Life Coalition, so its perception as right-wing propaganda is accurate.

And that French piece is not a report - it is a post on the Cholet Centre Hospitalier blog (strike one), with zero sources cited (strike two). Both alleged experts mentioned, Catherine Frade and Amine Umlil, are employed by the aforementioned health centre (strike three). LifeSite is the only sewer news outlet that has featured anything about that piece in 3 weeks (strike the final). Thank U, next.

 

[Ainnir]

Anything from LifeSite will immediately be shot down here.

I think a lot of posters are simply comfortable enough with their own views and choices that they don't feel the need to argue with anyone about it. They also may not need a moral reason to take/not take the vaccine (or do/not do pretty much anything else).

 

[PorphyriosK]

I think a lot of posters are simply comfortable enough with their own views and choices that they don't feel the need to argue with anyone about it. They also may not need a moral reason to take/not take the vaccine (or do/not do pretty much anything else).

Whoever decides they want to take it will get no arguments from me. Only those who insist that I am immoral for refusing it will receive arguments.

 

[hecma925]

Whoever decides they want to take it will get no arguments from me. Only those who insist that I am immoral for refusing it will receive arguments.

Like I'm going to listen to a murderer.

 

[J Michael]

LifeSiteNews is owned by the Conservative Campaign Life Coalition, so its perception as right-wing propaganda is accurate.

And that French piece is not a report - it is a post on the Cholet Centre Hospitalier blog (strike one), with zero sources cited (strike two). Both alleged experts mentioned, Catherine Frade and Amine Umlil, are employed by the aforementioned health centre (strike three). LifeSite is the only sewer news outlet that has featured anything about that piece in 3 weeks (strike the final). Thank U, next.

Good to know.

 

[Arachne]

Good to know.

Just to be clear, as a blog post it's valid (even though the PR team member who wrote it desperately needs formal writing style coaching). LSN is trying to spin it into something bigger and more serious than it actually is, and that's misinformation.

 

[J Michael]

LifeSiteNews is owned by the Conservative Campaign Life Coalition, so its perception as right-wing propaganda is accurate.

And that French piece is not a report - it is a post on the Cholet Centre Hospitalier blog (strike one), with zero sources cited (strike two). Both alleged experts mentioned, Catherine Frade and Amine Umlil, are employed by the aforementioned health centre (strike three). LifeSite is the only sewer news outlet that has featured anything about that piece in 3 weeks (strike the final). Thank U, next.

Do you know if the information in any part the the LifeSite article or the blog post or any other link in the article is faulty or incorrect? (I don't, btw)

EDIT: I just saw your post above. Not quite sure what you mean by " as a blog post it's valid". Could you explain, please? Thanks!

 

[J Michael]

. LSN is trying to spin it into something bigger and more serious than it actually is, and that's misinformation.

Pretty much like just about every other news outlet does. They almost all have some kind of bias and agenda, either left-wing or right-wing, esp. here in the US. It's been too long since I lived in the UK for me to comment on their MSM, etc.

As long as you know or at least suspect what bias/agenda a news outlet has, you can judge better how much salt to take it with.

 

[hecma925]

Just remember, for all media sources, you are the product.

 

[Arachne]

Do you know if the information in any part the the LifeSite article or the blog post or any other link in the article is faulty or incorrect? (I don't, btw)

EDIT: I just saw your post above. Not quite sure what you mean by " as a blog post it's valid". Could you explain, please? Thanks!

The blog is a communication channel between the Cholet hospital and the community it serves. The particular blog post is an interview with one of their resident physicians, who mentions another resident physician, explaining why they are supporting the withdrawal of the Covid vaccines on safety grounds. It's an opinion piece, and does not claim to be anything more.

LSN steps in and calls the post a 'report', which it is not. A report is a factual piece of writing, whose purpose is to present the findings of some kind of research or investigation, neither of which happened. Cholet may be 'linked' to the CTIAP, but it is not a research facility, so probably just one of several health centres feeding data into the regional committee. The LSN piece tries to make the Cholet blog post appear like it comes from the CTIAP, which, again, is not the case. All this is serial misinformation, and it looks more and more like the deliberate kind.

 

[J Michael]

The blog is a communication channel between the Cholet hospital and the community it serves. The particular blog post is an interview with one of their resident physicians, who mentions another resident physician, explaining why they are supporting the withdrawal of the Covid vaccines on safety grounds. It's an opinion piece, and does not claim to be anything more.

LSN steps in and calls the post a 'report', which it is not. A report is a factual piece of writing, whose purpose is to present the findings of some kind of research or investigation, neither of which happened. Cholet may be 'linked' to the CTIAP, but it is not a research facility, so probably just one of several health centres feeding data into the regional committee. The LSN piece tries to make the Cholet blog post appear like it comes from the CTIAP, which, again, is not the case. All this is serial misinformation, and it looks more and more like the deliberate kind.

Thanks!

I can see how you would reach your conclusion about LSN. It seems that they would have been more accurate to refer to the "report" as an article published on a specific blogsite. To that extent it could be said that they were engaging providing misinformation.

But beyond that, is the information provided here https://translate.google.com/transl.../inedit-exclusif-vaccins-contre-la-covid.html and here https://translate.google.com/transl...les-pour-les-4-vaccins-covid-19-31-mars-2021/ faulty or incorrect? Are Dr. Frade's conclusions mere opinions (opinion= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion ) or are they "conclusions" (conclusion= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion ) based on the facts and figures provided in the article, that you or someone else might disagree with?

 

[Arachne]

But beyond that, is the information provided here https://translate.google.com/transl.../inedit-exclusif-vaccins-contre-la-covid.html and here https://translate.google.com/transl...les-pour-les-4-vaccins-covid-19-31-mars-2021/ faulty or incorrect? Are Dr. Frade's conclusions mere opinions (opinion= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion ) or are they "conclusions" (conclusion= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion ) based on the facts and figures provided in the article, that you or someone else might disagree with?

I don't know a thing about Dr Frade's conclusions. The interview on the blog is not with her. It is with Dr Umlil, who mentions her as a resident pharmacology expert, but does not actually say anything about any conclusions. My guess is there were not any, because Cholet does not conduct research. Can you provide some explanation why Dr Umlil is not even mentioned by name in the LSN article? Because at this point, my educated guess is that LSN is counting on their readership being monolingual Anglos who can't tell that they're being fed silly hay.

 

[J Michael]

Let me correct myself, then. Are the "conclusions" written on the two translated links I provided mere opinions or conclusions based on the facts and figures provided in the linked pages? Do the linked pages contain faulty or incorrect information?

I have no idea why Dr. Umlil is not mentioned. You would have to ask that of LSN, with whom I have no connection, if you're interested enough and want to expend the time and energy. You may be correct about LSN "counting on their readership being monolingual Anglos...", but if even I (not monolingual but my French consists of about 6 words) can figure out how to get a web page translated into English, then I'm sure many others can, too. Whether they would or not is an entirely different matter. Would LSN underestimate their readership that much? Maybe. Maybe not. Let's not make assumptions either way.

It's quite likely that I missed it (going back and forth between here and the links, both in French and in English, could quite possibly have addled my tiny brain ), but where is this "interview" you refer to? I have yet to see anything that looks remotely like an interview, with the word "interview" being used and there being an interviewer asking questions and an interviewee answering them, with a clear delineation between the two.

All the above notwithstanding, is what was written in the LSN article and the pages linked by them in the article false, faulty, incorrect, or otherwise deficient in some manner? If so, could you show where that is the case and provide correct information?

 

[Arachne]

Given that Dr Umlil's piece says pretty much 'we're not happy with the level of safety trialling and therefore support the withdrawal of the vaccines from the French market', I don't see it being faulty, incorrect, or otherwise deficient. They're really not happy!

Beyond that, I'm not your research assistant, and if you want someone to go over both pieces with a fine-toothed comb and compare consistencies and inconsistencies between the two, you need someone else. I don't waste that kind of time and effort on rubbish. I recommend a professional fact-checker, if you can meet their fees.

 

[J Michael]

Thank you for your clarification, such as it was.

You're right...they're not happy. And they give their reasons why. Rubbish to you but not to everyone. Thanks, again.

I wouldn't ask you to be my "research assistant". Your critique of the LSN piece implied, at least to me, that there was some deficiency in the data or facts or information in that piece and its links. I just was asking you to be specific about that, if indeed you thought there was. If I misinterpreted any implication on your part, please forgive me.

 

[Arachne]

You're right...they're not happy. And they give their reasons why. Rubbish to you but not to everyone. Thanks, again.

And their reasons are nothing we haven't been seeing here and there over the last six months or so. Some of us consider those numbers a reasonable level of risk, while others don't. That's all.

 

[J Michael]

It's your body. Just don't say you weren't warned. You're right, Most people will survive it. But, there is a good portion of the elderly population, that it hits like a ton of bricks.
A small jab isn't going to hurt you.
The cure isn't as bad as the disease.
Worse, would be if you survived it in bad shape and someone close to you needs to support you afterwards.

You're correct, it is my body. Thanks for acknowledging that. As such I take full responsibility for it. Thanks again for your concern.

 

[J Michael]

As an addendum to the above response to Tzimis, I offer this for consideration but not necessarily endorsement:

On the Treatment of Covid-19

A Covid-19 early treatment protocol.

swprs.org

and this: https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/i-have-covid-19-now/available-covid-19-treatment-options

Also available, depending on where you are, is that horrible, terrible quackery known as homeopathy (but don't tell anybody....).

An Update on Homeopathy Remedies for the Current Wave of Covid-19 - Doctor Bhatia

Dr. Manish Bhatia shares his analysis of the current wave (2021) of Covid 19 in India with an analysis of indicated homeopathic remedies.

www.doctorbhatia.com

 

[Tzimis]

Id rather have the shot then take all of those pills daily. To much work to avoid getting stung and be done.
Also, India was an early success story a few months ago according to all the media. Unfortunately they had the highest cases just yesterday.
Over 350k in one day.
That's just documented cases.
The real tally is probably over a million.

 

[Arachne]

Reason the umpteenth why the 'young people have little to fear' attitude is rubbish.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[Luke]

I had my second shot yesterday afternoon. Today I have some tenderness in my arm plus I am tired. All expected symptoms. I know by my first shot that my arm will start feeling better in a couple days.

 

[Stinky]

You Don't Have To Suffer To Benefit From COVID Vaccination — But Some Prefer It

Live-tweeting your fever and body aches after your second shot is the ultimate humble-brag of 2021. But does it really matter to immunity if you have a strong reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine?

www.npr.org

Roughly half of those vaccinated with the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, and in particular women, experience unpleasantness — from hot, sore arms to chills, headache, fever and exhaustion.


Why?
Why more women? Is it because they report more often?

 

[Luke]

^ I am OK with just having a tender arm and feeling tired. I do not have to have more symptoms.

 

[Stinky]

Id rather have the shot then take all of those pills daily. To much work to avoid getting stung and be done.
Also, India was an early success story a few months ago according to all the media. Unfortunately they had the highest cases just yesterday.
Over 350k in one day.
That's just documented cases.
The real tally is probably over a million.

Millions Flock To Hindu Festival Amid Coronavirus Spike

Hindu pilgrims are traveling to bathe in the Ganges River to wipe out their sins.

www.npr.org

I saw this coming....

 

[Stinky]

Millions Flock To Hindu Festival Amid Coronavirus Spike

Hindu pilgrims are traveling to bathe in the Ganges River to wipe out their sins.

www.npr.org

I saw this coming....

People Are Talking About A 'Double Mutant' Variant In India. What Does That Mean?

The term is a reference to two particular mutations in SARS-CoV-2. But the variant in India could carry additional mutations.

www.npr.org

 

[Arachne]

Why more women? Is it because they report more often?

That's quite possible. Men can feel pressured to 'tough it out' and disregard anything but the worst discomfort - and sometimes, even that.

 

[hecma925]

Reason the umpteenth why the 'young people have little to fear' attitude is rubbish.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Looking forward to study linking the so-far anecdotal accounts of OB/GYN issues in women post-vaccination.

 

[J Michael]

Looking forward to study linking the so-far anecdotal accounts of OB/GYN issues in women post-vaccination.

Not to mention any studies already extant linking other infections and pregnancy complications.

 

[hecma925]

Not to mention any studies already extant linking other infections and pregnancy complications.

Yes, lowering infant mortality is an eternal goal.