Posts by Matthew Jackson2

163 posts shown.

Omicron variant in Coronavirus · Dec 10, 2021

rustywalker82 said:The data we're looking at right now doesn't even matter because you're just twisting what I said earlier:
Once this massive mutation of SARS-CoV-2 was flagged as a national threat, Fauci (about two weeks ago)

And honestly, what exactly is so controversial about my statement? Since when does someone breathing in the cold air somehow justify stripping away fundamental human rights?

→ go to post

Omicron variant in Coronavirus · Dec 10, 2021

rustywalker82 said:Where is the proof that this virus is actually dangerous enough to justify these massive restrictions? We're talking about blocking sirens from bringing in some record-breaking mutated strain while we sit around for weeks trying to figure out how lethal it is or if the vaccines even work against it.
That's like asking me for proof that the Earth isn't flat just because someone keeps insisting it has to be round every single week.

Look, we actually have data right in front of us showing that this new variant possesses significantly different characteristics, and as of right now, we haven't seen a single fatality linked to it. If the Earth's behavior were changing that drastically, then sure, questioning its shape or its orbit might make sense, but we aren't living in a fantasy world.

→ go to post

Omicron variant in Coronavirus · Dec 10, 2021

rustywalker82 said:Easy for you to say. Should we just wait for the sirens to go off, and then once the ultra-fast variant starts packing our refrigerators, we'll "react quickly"?
Honestly, people with a dark sense of humor would probably just say, "Fine, let's try it that way next time." Just crank the fridge dial from ten below down to twenty below, stuff it full, and call it a day. Problem solved.

Panic, huh? You're calling it panic when even the WHO is saying nobody has died from this yet?

What’s next, are we going to start spraying pesticides at crocodiles? I suppose you don't want to wait around until a crocodile actually bites a kid, do you?

Where is the actual evidence, though? You haven't provided a shred of it. It’s the same logic as walking outside after a heavy rain and telling everyone to stop eating produce because the soil might be contaminated by the runoff; until we actually test a sample, we have no idea if we need to be stocking up those massive walk-in freezers or not.

→ go to post

Omicron variant in Coronavirus · Dec 9, 2021

rustywalker82 said:The real danger here is detecting a massive mutation—maybe the biggest we've seen yet—that's spreading like wildfire right at the source.
So what, we should just stay quiet? Just let it spread, let it potentially bypass all our immunity, maybe kill off the people who are already a burden on society anyway, or maybe it won't. Whatever. 😁

I mean, seriously, forget about the US or "science" or any of that nonsense. A dive bar in the Midwest is where the real truth lives. Or like that old saying goes: "If you need an expert, just ask a guy at the pub." 🙂

Look, this represents a potential threat that absolutely warrants heightened surveillance, extreme caution, strategic planning, and a rapid response if there's any sign that these fears are grounded in reality; however, it does not justify inciting mass panic or slapping everyone with restrictive mandates...

→ go to post

Omicron variant in Coronavirus · Dec 9, 2021

rustywalker82 said:Back when this massive mutation of SARS-CoV-2 first popped up and triggered a national emergency, Fauci told Biden and all Americans about two weeks ago that every adult needs to grab that third dose as soon as possible.
Then, weeks later, the lab studies come out confirming what we suspected: that third shot makes antibodies dozens of times more effective at neutralizing Omicron, plus the impact of these major mutations on T-cells gained through immunization is actually pretty weak (not to mention we already knew how much a booster helps against the Delta threat).

The thing is, Americans have this knack—this critical mass—for holding experts accountable and putting them back in their place. That’s why the US is the US, while everywhere else just stays stuck in its own local chaos.

William Barrett7 said:Zero deaths from Omicron so far, even though this new variant is ripping through populations twice as fast as the lethal Delta
https://www.cityam.com/anxiously-opt...-deadly-delta/
The WHO has basically admitted they haven't been able to tie a single COVID death to this new variant yet. While there are reports of Omicron popping up in dozens of countries, nobody has actually reported a fatality caused by this specific mutation so far.

How much longer is this panic supposed to last?

So, where exactly is this supposed threat hiding? I mean, we’re all hearing this constant drumbeat about how dangerous things are, yet here we are, staring at the reality that nobody seems to be dropping dead. It makes you wonder if we're being led on a wild goose chase.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Sep 29, 2021

Mark Richardson86 said:I mean, broadly speaking, that’s all true... but there's a catch. Given how this forum operates, and seeing how much energy goes into defending a specific viewpoint, aren't you just philosophizing about a subject you clearly haven't grasped? You're talking extensively about absolutely nothing, yet somehow convinced that you'll manage to persuade someone that you actually know what you're talking about. If that's the case, then the alternative is frankly a bit unsettling...

That pretty much sums up your whole stance: "Yeah, you're basically right, but since I don't view you as an authority, I'm just going to ignore everything you said."

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Sep 27, 2021

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

It doesn't provide enough protection to halt viral transmission, which means you're still effectively a walking threat to everyone else around you.

There are more severe outcomes.

Sure, there are, but we're talking about a risk level comparable to stepping off a curb into traffic without looking. I’ve never heard anyone tell a kid to avoid crossing the street just because there happens to be a crosswalk within half a mile of where they are standing.

Their immune systems are still developing, and we have no idea if this infection will lead to long-term complications.

Look, obviously we can't predict the future with absolute certainty, but what we *do* know for sure is that we can't just wall children off from every single pathogen out there; if we try to create a sterile bubble, we're almost guaranteed to mess up their immune system development in the long run.

Furthermore, as far as the data goes, we currently don't even have any concrete indications that this infection causes lasting damage—we don't even have statistically significant evidence regarding Long COVID in children when compared to control groups.

The whole foundation of modern American evidence-based medicine requires us to prove a pathogen is harmful before we restrict things, while simultaneously proving a drug is safe. We can sit here all day debating whether that philosophy is fundamentally flawed or "correct," but since that is the standard we operate under in our medical institutions, your argument simply doesn't hold water.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Sep 24, 2021

briskjackal5 said:The whole thing is trickier than it looks on the surface, I guess.

I’ve been digging through the stats over at the CDC, and man, they had something like 200,000 hospitalizations for people under 17 right here in the USA, and that was all just leading up to this past May.

-Stipe

But really, the real question is the nature of those admissions.

Because you can't just lump them all together; it is a completely different beast whether you're talking about a massive wave of kids with zero pre-existing health issues being hospitalized due to COVID symptoms, versus a group of kids with established high-risk factors being admitted for COVID, or—which is a huge distinction—kids who happened to test positive for the virus during an admission for an entirely unrelated medical issue.

Simply finding kids who test positive while they are already in the hospital for something else doesn't provide any meaningful argument for vaccination.

As for children who have known high-risk underlying conditions, this entire "risk vs. benefit" math falls apart for them, and they should absolutely be consulting with their own specialists regarding any vaccination decisions.

While I was hunting around trying to track down the specific breakdown for those numbers, I stumbled upon this link: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_5.html

According to this link, within the specific area covered by the program—which represents roughly 10% of the population—there were a total of 4,123 COVID-related hospitalizations for those under 18, cumulatively up until September 18, 2021.

Honestly, I have no idea where that 200,000 figure you mentioned came from, because if we're seeing only 4,123 cases in a sample representing 10% of the population, then that 200,000 number seems incredibly dubious to me.

Furthermore, those 4,123 cases include everyone who tested positive upon admission, regardless of what actually brought them into the hospital in the first place.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Sep 23, 2021

I have a question for these 31 individuals—those who apparently believe they’re always right—and I mean this sincerely: when you're sending your kids off to school in the morning, do you bother putting a helmet on them just in case they trip and hit their heads on the sidewalk? If you don't, I genuinely want to know why. Is the risk really not high enough for you to take even the most basic precaution? It seems absolutely reckless to me, frankly.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 18, 2021

Megan Green72 said:Hell no.
But you didn't answer whether there was a tendency for them to become mandatory...

I don't know and I don't care.

I truly appreciate such an elaborate and well-reasoned response.

/S

@Ethan Kim4, just for those who are too lazy to actually click the link: it’s about high-risk children and adolescents.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 17, 2021

Megan Green72 said:They got the green light for unlimited use—as for how many people actually got them, that depends on a million different things.

I looked into the differences. Like I already told you, I don't care what you call them—but the moment you try to equate them with ones that have standard MA, I'm going to shut you down because they don't share the same safety profile. If they did, we wouldn't even have the CMA.

I’m not equating them. They're just as safe as the ones with MA because, safety-wise, they cleared everything required for an MA. They didn't just pass the secondary Phase 3 points—those aren't even safety-related.☕

And you don't care what I call them? Look, the point isn't about my terminology—the point is that other people are lying and calling them "experimental." And you're basically defending that by arguing that CMA isn't identical to MA. Real smart. ☕

Well, one of those million variables is precisely these kinds of nuances regarding potential risks versus benefits. But more importantly, you didn't actually answer my question about whether there was a push to make them mandatory...

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 14, 2021

Megan Green72 said:Nothing I said contradicts that at all. ☕
The level of evidence regarding safety at this stage is way lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been used for years, even if it stays above the threshold we decided was acceptable.

And those "long-standing" mandatory vaccines were also new once upon a time.

That mostly comes down to definitions. Here are the facts that don't care about your definitions:
- the vaccine doesn't meet the requirements for standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the kind of data required for regular MA—is still being collected
- using that same dataset, the vaccine in the USA received emergency approval, which is basically an authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

There's no such thing as CMA in the USA, so it's not clear how a vaccine that cleared all major phases and met its primary endpoints for safety and efficacy gets fast-tracked without it being an EUA.

btw go study the difference between full FDA approval and an EUA.
https://vaccine.unchealthcare.org/sc...-fda-approval/
An EUA does not affect vaccine safety, because it does not impact development, such as research, clinical studies and the studying of side effects and adverse reactions. Instead, it speeds up manufacturing and administrative processes.

If a vaccine lacks safety evidence, it’s experimental—period. I don't care how much mental gymnastics people try to pull to spin it otherwise.
Whether you call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental doesn't matter—those labels don't change the reality.

I'm not calling it experimental or semi-experimental. I'm calling it a vaccine that got CMA/EUA based on efficacy and safety data, and that's exactly how I'm going to treat it. Calling it "experimental" or trying to soften it with "semi-experimental" is malicious because it's nowhere near the truth.
Nah, you're just quoting a post that compares potential unknown long-term vaccine side effects against the possible unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.

Yeah. Basically.

Vaccine safety and testing levels asymptotically approach 100%, but you only actually hit 100% at infinity.

The likelihood of stumbling upon some unknown side effect depends entirely on how extensively a vaccine has been tested and how widespread its use has become. Mind you, there's a specific subset of side effects that simply don't overlap between those two categories.

Take, for example, when the FDA was first weighing in on blood clots related to the AstraZeneca vaccine; the agency basically admitted they hadn't performed an analysis broken down by age groups because the member states hadn't submitted the necessary data. In the context of a formal clinical trial, failing to collect that kind of data would tank the whole thing—it wouldn't even pass a basic peer review.

Here’s another scenario: it might be demonstrated that a certain side effect occurs frequently enough once antibody levels hit a specific threshold that vaccinating those individuals becomes counterproductive (they end up facing a higher risk with less net benefit due to their existing antibodies). A rigorous clinical trial would perform that specific analysis, but in the real world, we aren't checking people's antibody levels before they get jabbed. Consequently, it becomes incredibly difficult to detect such a side effect because we're only looking at total incidence rates, rather than having the baseline data needed to identify that it's disproportionately affecting a specific subgroup.

Then there’s the second type of side effect that mass observation simply cannot catch: long-term issues that require time to manifest, such as various autoimmune diseases. These can wreak havoc on the body while symptoms only surface after the damage has already accumulated. Whether you have 5,000 people or 5,000,000, the symptoms won't show up until enough time has passed.

Even those mandatory vaccines we've used for decades were once considered new.

Nobody is claiming they weren't new. The real question is whether they were being rolled out on a massive scale while they were still "new," and whether there was a push to make them mandatory the moment they hit the market.

I'm not going to call it experimental or semi-experimental; I'll call it a vaccine that received CMA/EUA based on facts regarding efficacy and safety, and that is exactly how I will treat it. Calling a vaccine "experimental," or your attempt to soften it by calling it "semi-experimental," is malicious because it is nowhere near the truth.

I've done my homework on the differences. As I've already told you, I don't actually care what labels you want to use, but the moment you try to equate them with drugs that have standard Marketing Authorization, I'm going to shut you down because they simply do not possess the same level of safety. If they did, the CMA wouldn't exist in the first place.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 12, 2021

Megan Green72 said:Look, side effects pop up with all drugs and vaccines. Period. Clinical trials aren't perfect—you can't test a few thousand people and expect to cover 7 billion people 100%, no matter how long you run the study. That's just reality. And don't give me that "experimental" nonsense; that lie doesn't fly here.☕

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Coming from the same person who spent all this time trying to explain that things aren't just binary—that they aren't just zeros and ones, but can exist somewhere in the middle.

At this stage, the level of evidentiary certainty regarding safety is significantly lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been in use for decades, even if it does technically sit above the threshold we’ve collectively decided is acceptable.

This isn't anything new. And calling them experimental is a lie that won't fly here.☕

Well, that largely comes down to semantics. However, there are certain facts that don't depend on how you choose to label them:
- the vaccine does not meet the requirements for a standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the very data required for a regular MA, which is still being gathered
- using that exact same dataset, the vaccine received emergency approval in the USA, which is effectively authorization to use an experimental vaccine.

Whether you want to call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental is entirely your prerogative, but those underlying facts remain unchanged regardless of the label you slap on them.

No. I was quoting a specific post that was making a general point about vaccines.

Actually, no, you were quoting a specific post that compares potential unknown long-term side effects of a vaccine against the potential unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.

With a vaccine, that represents an acceptable risk we accept because of the necessity of the shot (which is essentially the definition of CMA), but that risk isn't equally justifiable across every single age group. Comparing it to the virus is nothing more than pure whataboutism, the likes of which I haven't seen in medical discourse before.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 12, 2021

Nicole James said:Yeah, the actual danger the disease poses to kids is relatively low—this article mentions two in a million, though I’ve seen slightly higher figures elsewhere, but it doesn't really change the point. That risk is essentially comparable to the risks associated with vaccination. This is why, from what I've observed, routine vaccination isn't being pushed for children as a blanket rule, but rather based on an individual risk assessment.

But of course, the moment anyone mentions even a tiny incidence of vaccine side effects, someone is always quick to jump in claiming the vaccine wasn't tested enough—questioning the long-term implications or any potential side effects we haven't discovered yet—while they completely gloss over the long-term and currently unknown consequences of the virus itself...

You keep making this point that vaccines are the crowning achievement of modern medicine, but I have to disagree. There is actually an even greater achievement at play here, because it’s what allows us to develop vaccines in a way that is both safe and reliable in the first place.

What I’m talking about is the entire framework of principles we have painstakingly established over decades of research. These are the rules that dictate exactly how we must prove the efficacy and safety of any medication or vaccine.

At its core, whether you are treating a patient or administering a vaccine, you are performing a medical intervention. For that action to be ethically justifiable, we absolutely must understand the safety profile and the specific outcome we are aiming for.

That means having a reasonable assurance regarding long-term safety and a clear, demonstrable benefit. Trying to justify the benefits of an intervention by brushing aside potential unknown risks sets a dangerous precedent—one unlike anything we’ve ever seen in the history of medicine. It goes against everything we have learned from experience and flies in the face of the very standards we built based on that experience. And frankly, those rigorous standards themselves are the true crowning achievement of modern medicine.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 11, 2021

Nicole James said:Are you talking about something unknown and uncertain, like a new virus?

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jul 8, 2021

Tyler Lopez98 said:I don't have children yet, but if I did, they would be vaccinated.

Every parent carries the weight of ensuring their children's well-being—and in my view, disease prevention is a fundamental part of that responsibility. It is simply the responsible thing to do. I have full confidence in the safety of vaccines; I chose to get vaccinated myself, as did everyone in my family, and I would certainly extend that same protection to my children should the time come.

To be honest, I find it difficult to wrap my head around those who oppose vaccination—people who cling to absurd conspiracy theories while disregarding medicine and science in an era as advanced as the 21st century.

So, you're implying the Mayo Clinic is peddling nonsense conspiracy theories? This guy actually sent you a link right before your post where the Mayo Clinic explicitly states they don't recommend vaccinating children, but sure, go on, you clearly know better than the experts...

At the end of the day, you're acting exactly like the anti-vaxxers you criticize—you're deciding what's good for your kids based on something you heard somewhere else, even though there isn't actual scientific backing for it, and the only real difference here is where you're choosing to get your information from.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jun 29, 2021

Kyle Nelson2 said:We still don't actually know how these Delta or Delta+ variants affect kids

Look, once we actually have those definitive answers, then—and only then—can we sit down and reevaluate the current guidelines. But honestly, the mere fact that there is an ongoing scientific investigation into these unknowns isn't some kind of valid reason to push for vaccination right now.

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jun 29, 2021

coastalorca43 said:Is this pilot program by Šimetinka inspired by those ideas coming out of France regarding reactive vaccination for everyone in a positive person's circle?
The whole plan seems to involve mobile teams rushing in to vaccinate households, workplaces, schools, and even entire neighborhoods the moment they detect a single positive case.

Because, if history and clinical data have taught us anything, it's that targeting people during that critical incubation window is incredibly smart moves...

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jun 28, 2021

neontinker19 said:Keep your hands off my kids!! Get lost, Satan, in the name of Jesus Christ!

From here on out, I’m not letting my kids get vaccinated, even for the mandatory stuff, let alone with this gene therapy for Covid-19.

If you want to debate matters regarding Christ, head over here:

I suppose people probably argue about Satan in there too, but honestly, that kind of thing doesn't really interest me, so I haven't bothered to look.

Look, I am merely passing along what was said, so maybe take the edge off the outrage a bit. What I fail to grasp is why anyone would resort to punishing their own children just because some bureaucrat in the local government decided to open their mouth and spout some absolute nonsense...

→ go to post

Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus · Jun 28, 2021

Morgan Peterson6 said:Here you go again

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...rmation_hr.pdf

The reason that link isn't working is because you just copied it straight out of a forum post, and since this forum tends to shorten those massive URLs, the path is broken. If you can actually track down the original source where you grabbed this from, try right-clicking the actual link and selecting "copy link location" instead of just highlighting the text. That might actually get us somewhere.

→ go to post