all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 40 points 1 year ago (23 children)

People under 65 with no underlying conditions aren’t eligible under the F.D.A. approval, even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness.

This "administration" is absolutely unhinged.

They want to kill so very many people.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They want to kill so very many people.

    My bet is that this administration will poison the vaccine. It'd solve a lot of their problems. It'd exterminate their undesirables. It would lower the social security allocation. It would also make people distrust vaccines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    What's the problem? The person at high risk of severe illness can still take the covid vaccine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Vaccine efficacy depends on the number in the population who take the vaccine. I guess we learned really fuck all from 2020.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    No, not everyone at high risk can get the vaccine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Then this changes nothing for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Then this changes nothing for them.

    .... Their caregivers who go out into the world and then come back into their home now can't get the vaccine, increasing the attack surface for the at risk persons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Ok. Now we've hit on the misinformation I wanted to highlight.

    A caregiver taking the covid vaccine DOES NOT protect the at risk individuals. This myth is actually putting vulnerable people at risk.

    Vaccinated people can still become infected with the same potential virality (with fewer, milder symptoms and being infectious for less time).

    Wear an N95 mask around the vulnerable. Don't rely on the covid vaccine for their protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I never said vaccination is a replacement for masking. That's a begging the question logical fallacy on your part. Of course the caregiver should also be masking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    I added the mask recommendation so that anyone reading this post knows what to do around people with vulnerable immune systems.

    The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant. The at risk remain at risk.

    The phrase "even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness" is superfluous. Vaccination of others does not protect people at high risk of severe illness from Covid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant.

    No, our opinions on it are irrelevant to them. Only they get to decide what's relevant to them. And that's why restricting the eligibility to the vaccine for political reasons is immoral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    This is a different argument. This is "anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to have it". Agreed.

    My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)

    No, it does not imply that, at all. You are inferring it. Caregivers should get the vaccine, because everyone who does not have a medical reason not to should, because it is scientifically observed to reduce viral load and improve outcomes from an infection. That's a completely independent statement from masking recommendations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is not an argument about getting vaccinated. You are not reading correctly.

    A caregivers covid vaccination status is irrelevant to the at risk. The covid vaccine does not stop transmission. It will not protect people at risk.

    Putting it bluntly. You being vaccinated will not stop you killing your immunocompromised grandmother with covid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've noticed that a lot of people on Lemmy simply don't believe this, and consider it to be anti-vax propaganda.

    The first time I got covid, it was from someone who had been vaccinated. She didn't wear a mask around me or tell me she had covid because she didn't think she could give it to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • People tend to have only binary opinions and this is a technical topic that has been deeply politicised.

    I think this particular argument of viral transmission is worth having, because it may just make someone think twice around their more vulnerable friends and family members.

    I should have also highlighted that recently recovered can also silently infect with other strains.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Covid is endemic in the US. The more people vaccinated, the less the virus will be able to mutate this fall. The less it mutates, the less lethal it will continue to become. By stopping the vaccinations, covid will spread faster and could become more dangerous as a result.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don't disagree.

    My point is that at risk individuals will remain at risk, regardless of the vaccinated status of people around them.

    Anyone assuming their covid^1 vaccine will protect others is putting them in danger.

    1^(other vaccines like measles and smallpox do protect others).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    After reading the article, it should still be relatively easy to get one if pharmacies and doctors don't play stupid. It seems like this move is meant to discourage people from even trying to get on or to cause hesitancy among providers in administering it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    I would hope so, but in either this article or some other, so far, CVS and Walgreens had not replied to request for comment. I think there is legitimate concern that doctors and pharmacies may cave to this administration because they fear retaliation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -35 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    It's been a century since the Spanish Flu, yet we still vaccinate for it. We will never "move on" from COVID any more than we did for the Flu.

    If you want to challenge Big Pharma, there are better ways than spouting bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 28 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    WTH?

    "The world has moved on from COVID" 🤣

    Cases are spiking again. People still die from COVID. I'm sure everyone would love to "move on", but...putting your head in the sand solves nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Never said people can't catch covid. Of course they do, but they're not dying like the pandemic. It's down to the flu. Time to move on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Huh, seems I've heard this song before. People were saying "it's the flu" since day one.

    If you don't have anything useful to offer here, I suggest you refrain....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Or, "it's ok, it's endemic now", or, "it's ok, it's just seasonal". Nothing was learned from 2020 onward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    If anything, there's been a severe regression by some of the population. It's a real face palm. I mean, I still see anti-Fauci stickers on cars.

    I mean...on the one hand, I tune in a lot to futurist/transhumanist types of things and get inspired by one segment of humanity, but then daily I'm immersed in things that just make me wonder what the hell the human species is even up to...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. When I said it's down to the flu I meant since the vaccines became available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Ever since vaccines became available, covid is like the flu, and the flu is only the flu because it also has a vaccine available, so don't bother getting the covid vaccine which has been instrumental in getting covid under control? Is that your position? Let covid go back to doing what it did to populations before vaccines by not getting the vaccines?

  • source
  • parent