Posts by Matthew Jackson2

Megan Green72 As Ethan Campbell81 put it:
So, I was sitting there thinking about all this, and honestly, it just gets me worked up. Is it really? I mean, seriously, how many children was that measles vaccine actually tested on? It feels like we’re constantly being told to trust the process, but when you start digging into the actual numbers and the scope of these clinical trials, things start looking a little different than what they feed us on the nightly news. It makes you wonder if the sample sizes used in these studies are actually representative of the massive population we're dealing with here in the States, or if we're just supposed to take everyone's word for it without question. It's enough to make your head spin if you dwell on it too long. I honestly don't even know where to begin with this particular mess, but let me just say right off the bat: I was thinking about this earlier while I was stuck in that soul-crushing traffic on the I-95—you know the one, where you spend forty minutes moving three miles—and it hit me how much we tend to gloss over the obvious. It’s like when you’re looking back at a situation and realize everyone was just staring at the floor instead of seeing the giant red flag waving right in front of their faces. I've always been the type to dwell on these things, to sit with the discomfort of a poorly handled situation, and frankly, looking at what happened before, I find myself feeling more frustrated than surprised. It’s that same pattern of behavior we see over and over again, isn't it? You expect a certain level of foresight, a bit of common sense, perhaps even a shred of institutional integrity, but instead, you get this repetitive cycle of mismanagement that leaves you shaking your head in disbelief. I remember once, years ago, dealing with a similar headache during my time working in Chicago, and the parallels are almost too uncanny to ignore. We have to be better than this, or at least admit when we aren't. Wait, so you're telling me they actually went ahead and gave him the green light? I mean, seriously? I was sitting here sipping my coffee, just staring at the news, thinking there was no way—absolutely no way—that the authorities would actually sign off on that. It feels like we’re living in some kind of fever dream where common sense has just packed its bags and left the building. You look at how things are being handled lately, with all the bureaucracy and the endless red tape, and you'd think they'd be more cautious, but apparently, not in this country. It’s one of those moments where you just have to shake your head and wonder if anyone in charge is actually paying attention to the consequences. It's maddening, really.

I am certainly not going to do your homework for you. If you truly believe you can waltz in here and twist my words just to score some cheap points for your own agenda, you’re going to have to try a whole lot harder than that.

Linda Harris59 said:Let’s get one thing straight: measles aren't the primary threat to kids—the danger lies with adults who failed to vaccinate when they were young. By choosing ignorance over science, parents are actively jeopardizing their own children's health and stripping them of their fundamental right to protection from preventable diseases.

Use some common sense here. The COVID virus mutates much too rapidly for standard, slow-moving regulatory procedures to keep pace effectively.
.
.

Here we go again, another self-proclaimed expert weighing in on everything.

It’s actually quite unsettling when you sit down and really crunch the numbers on this; they say roughly 17% of those who fall ill end up battling one or more complications. I was reading through some data the other day—it reminded me of a long conversation I had with an old colleague back in Chicago about how unpredictable health trends can be—and it’s not just a simple fever. We're talking about everything from ear infections and pneumonia to febrile seizures, which are those terrifying convulsions triggered by high temperatures. Then you have the gastrointestinal issues like diarrhea, or even much more severe neurological threats like encephalitis. It’s a lot to process, and honestly, it makes you wonder how many people are truly being told the full scope of what they might be facing. The most frequent complication we see, pneumonia, tends to crop up in roughly 6 to 13% of those infected, and honestly, it remains the primary driver behind mortality rates associated with measles. It’s one of those things that really drives home how much more complicated these respiratory issues can get once they take hold.If you look at the most recent data coming out of the European Union, they’re reporting that about one person dies for every thousand people who contract measles. It’s one of those statistics that stays lodged in your mind, isn't it? You start thinking about the sheer scale of it, the math behind the tragedy, and how these numbers trickle down from massive bureaucratic reports into actual, breathing lives. I was reading an article the other day—I think it was on BuzzFeed—about how we tend to gloss over these specific ratios until they hit home, and honestly, it makes you wonder if we're truly grasping the gravity of these outbreaks or if we've just become numb to the percentages. It’s honestly terrifying when you really sit down and look at the data, because it’s become painfully clear that the little ones—specifically those infants under the age of two—are facing the absolute highest risk when it comes to severe complications and mortality. I was reading through some reports earlier, thinking about how we handle pediatric care here in the States, and it just hits you how vulnerable they are. You see these headlines, and you want to believe everything is fine, but then you look at the actual vulnerability of a toddler compared to an adult, and it changes your whole perspective on how we should be approaching public health. It makes you wonder if the warnings are being loud enough, or if we're all just moving too fast to notice the danger facing our youngest citizens.It’s honestly infuriating how little attention is paid to the actual risks facing pregnant women and those living with compromised immune systems. We aren't just talking about a temporary fever here; we are talking about the long-term wreckage left behind after someone recovers from measles. I've seen people dismiss these concerns as nothing more than hysteria, but the science tells a much darker story. For months following an infection, a person's immune system can be completely destabilized. Even worse, in a small percentage of cases, a lethal complication known as SSPE—subacute sclerosing panencephalitis—can manifest in the brain years after the initial illness has passed. It's a ticking time bomb that most people seem content to ignore, which, quite frankly, is terrifying.

I was reading through this recent report on how we’re handling various illnesses lately, and honestly, it just sets me off. It feels like every time we turn around, there’s some new official narrative being pushed by the big institutions, and you have to wonder who is actually looking out for the individual. I remember back when I was working in Chicago, dealing with all sorts of bureaucratic nonsense, and it felt exactly like this—just layers upon layers of experts telling you what to think while they sit comfortably behind their mahogany desks. The whole discussion surrounding how we categorize these health risks seems increasingly disconnected from what people are actually seeing on the ground. You look at the way the CDC handles these things, and it’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is too afraid to grab the brake because they might lose their funding or their standing within the European Union. It’s frustrating, truly. We are told to trust the science, but science is supposed to be an evolving inquiry, not a rigid dogma handed down from on high to keep the masses compliant. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a colleague—let's call him Alan—who used to work in medical research. He used to say that once the bureaucracy becomes larger than the actual practice of medicine, you've lost the plot. That’s exactly where we are now. We’ve built these massive, sprawling systems that prioritize their own survival over the actual well-being of the public. It’s a cycle of misinformation and damage control that never seems to end, and frankly, I am exhausted by the sheer audacity of it all. They expect us to just nod along, accept the latest directive, and pretend everything is functioning perfectly, even when the cracks are wide enough to drive a truck through.

Wait a second, I think you might have gotten your chickenpox and measles mixed up there. If we’re being serious about the medical reality here, chickenpox is actually significantly more dangerous for adults than it is for kids. It’s one of those things where the risks shift as you age, and honestly, it's something people tend to overlook when they're rushing to make a point.

Think about it for a second—really sit with the idea—because if you actually look at the timeline, the way this whole thing has unfolded, it just doesn't add up. This whole virus situation, this constant, rapid-fire mutation we've been dealing with since the beginning, it moves far too fast for any kind of standard, rigorous medical procedure to keep pace. You can't exactly run a methodical, step-by-step clinical trial when the target is changing its entire molecular structure every time we think we've finally gotten a handle on it. It’s like trying to hit a moving target while riding a rollercoaster; by the time you aim, the goalpost has already shifted somewhere else entirely. Honestly, it makes you wonder how anyone expects a traditional regulatory process to stay relevant when the science is sprinting just to stay in the same place.

Listen, if we’re going to have a serious conversation about virology, we need to actually look at the structural mechanics of what we're dealing with here. You see, the coronavirus is an enveloped virus, and when you're dealing with that specific type of architecture, those viruses generally aren't as prone to constant, frantic mutations as you might think. It's just how the biology works. On top of that—and I mean this quite deliberately—the coronavirus itself exhibits a level of stability that puts other enveloped pathogens, like the seasonal flu, to shame. It isn't just spinning out of control every time it hits a new host; there is a certain structural persistence there that people seem to overlook in their rush to panic.

Linda Harris59 said:The facts simply don't support your nonsense. Take San Francisco, for example—a few years back, there was a localized measles outbreak. This was a disease that had been virtually non-existent for decades, all because a handful of parents decided to exercise their "rights" by opting out of vaccinations. By doing so, they essentially gambled with their children's lives, ignoring the fact that measles can be incredibly dangerous once you reach adulthood.

That’s the reality of dealing with parents who genuinely believe they possess more wisdom than medical professionals and are willing to jeopardize their own children's health just to prove a point.
.
.

When you look at the data, measles is significantly more dangerous for children than COVID-19, and frankly, the measles vaccine has been vetted through far more rigorous testing cycles.

Nancy Williams58 said:First off, his statement is basically asking the IRS to step in because he’s calling for illegal coercion—in this case, forcing vaccinations without parental consent.

The whole thing is actually dead simple, and it’s the one question almost nobody asks—especially not those high-and-mighty moralizers:

If states are facing what they describe as an unprecedented crisis—the biggest health Armageddon in a century, a mess whose fallout we won't even fully feel for years—why aren't they just making vaccination mandatory? Why isn't that even on the table for anyone?

That’s the only question that matters. And no—"not enough vaccine supply" isn't a valid answer, because let's be real, that's just plain false.

I have to agree; without some kind of legal mandate in place, what he's suggesting would actually be a criminal offense.

Personally, I am staunchly against vaccinating children unless they fall into specific high-risk categories due to an underlying medical condition.

As for those comments over on Reddit, it's glaringly obvious that my perspective is shared by the vast majority of readers, yet certain individuals really do cross a line that should be sacred—like that one person who felt the need to tell someone to watch how they cross the street... Honestly, I find that kind of vitriol completely unacceptable.

Linda Harris59 said:This is a textbook example of how irresponsible parents can jeopardize the health and lives of both their own children and everyone else's. The reason "everyone else" matters is because unvaccinated kids become carriers within the school system.
.
.

Oh, please. Give me a break. They’re talking about risking children's lives over a virus that doesn't even pose a significant threat to kids in the first place...

So, here’s the latest poll from Google, and honestly, it’s pretty much in line with what we’ve been seeing over on the Reddit forum, maybe off by just a few percentage points.

It seems Capakov’s deputy has some seriously questionable ideas floating around, but looking at the feedback, those concepts aren't just unpopular with the public—some of these comments are so out of line they practically deserve an investigation by the IRS.

Lisa Kern83 said:I honestly think the reason they target this specific group (the elderly, kids with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses) first isn't out of pure compassion—it’s practical experimentation.
If things go south, they always have a built-in excuse: the underlying condition.
Look, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't see the humanity in this at all. In fact, I see the exact opposite.

The reality is they’re being prioritized because their mortality rates are higher—that's the "humanitarian" angle they sell us—but more importantly, they represent the heaviest strain on our healthcare system, which, let's be honest, is the single biggest headache of this whole pandemic mess from a societal standpoint.

Lisa Kern83 said:Matthew Jackson2

There’s no doubt the vaccine is still safe enough for seniors or people in high-risk groups due to chronic conditions, even when you factor in the inherent risks. But when we're talking about young, healthy people—whose risk of severe COVID is roughly 1,000 times lower than older or sick individuals—that risk becomes a massive deciding factor, especially if the goal is protecting others rather than oneself.

The German advisory body, the SEC, reached the exact same conclusion. They recommended that kids aged 12-17 should only get vaccinated if they have an underlying condition or live with someone at high risk who can't be vaccinated. Sadly, the final call rests with politicians, not the experts...

In my opinion, based on what I've seen with people in my own circle after they got jabbed, anyone dealing with health issues or taking regular medication faces even higher stakes. Mixing different vaccine brands or combining them feels like playing Russian roulette compared to healthy folks.
It's just like how COVID hits certain people harder.
So, in my view: COVID risk = vaccine side effect/consequence risk.
Plus, someone might have a genetic quirk that doesn't show up until they're middle-aged or older. People carry all sorts of metabolic issues without even knowing it.
There isn't real research for anything. Everything was hit with emergency approval, and everyone is just turning a blind eye, swallowing the medical and political narrative like it's totally normal to run this kind of massive experiment without a second thought.

Look, she’s not wrong about the uncertainty, but you have to look at the math here. When your actual risk of facing a severe case of COVID, suffering permanent damage, or dying is a thousand times higher than that of your average neighbor, then taking that "Russian roulette" shot starts looking like a calculated move rather than a gamble. Risk is always comparative; even if we acknowledge that these individuals face an increased chance of unknown interactions, that spike in risk is still dwarfed by the massive, terrifying leap in risk they face if they just catch the virus itself.

I mean, honestly, if that guy from the FBI showed up, kidnapped you, and offered you a round of Russian roulette instead of one of his usual twisted games, you’d probably take the deal in a heartbeat.

I honestly don't understand why people feel the need to bring up "woobies" in serious discussions, but here we are again. It’s one of those things that just seems to surface whenever a conversation starts getting a bit too heavy or nuanced, almost like a psychological defense mechanism where someone just retreats into this infantile idea of comfort to avoid dealing with the actual meat of the argument. I remember back when I was living in Chicago, I had this old, tattered fleece blanket—nothing fancy, just something I grabbed from a discount bin at Target—and I used to wrap myself in it whenever the winter wind would howl off Lake Michigan and rattle my windows, but even then, there's a massive distinction between seeking a moment of tactile solace and using such a concept as a way to derail a logical debate. It feels reductive, frankly. We should be able to tackle complex topics without everyone needing to retreat into some sort of sensory cocoon, though I suppose that's asking a lot from the modern discourse, isn't it? It's all becoming so soft, so incredibly cushioned, that I fear we're losing the ability to sit with discomfort, which is usually exactly where the truth resides. kaže:
Look, I’m going to ask you nicely—please, don't make this difficult for me, because I really don't have the patience for a headache today—but could someone actually explain to me what on earth a PCV vaccine is?

I assume you’re talking about conjugate vaccines. Generally speaking, those fall under the umbrella of classical vaccine technology, though I suppose it’s technically feasible to develop a conjugate vector or even a conjugate mRNA shot—it just seems like an absolute nightmare to pull off. You’d be asking the injected RNA to reprogram a cell to produce not just one antigen, but two simultaneously, which sounds like a logistical mess from a biological standpoint.

The whole concept behind conjugate vaccines is actually quite clever, though I suppose it’s one of those things that sounds far more complicated than it needs to be when you first hear it explained. Essentially, these vaccines are designed to exploit the specific way our immune system operates—specifically how it "links" different reactions together. You see, there are certain antigens out there that are just incredibly weak; they’re basically too subtle for our immune systems to even notice, let alone mount a proper defense against. It’s like trying to signal someone in a crowded stadium by whispering; they simply aren't going to hear you. So, what scientists do is take one of those weak, ineffective antigens and physically attach it to a much stronger, more robust antigen—something our immune system is already primed to recognize and react to aggressively. By tethering them together, we essentially trick the body into paying attention. Because the immune system recognizes the strong component, it inadvertently "learns" to recognize the weak one as well, effectively bridging the gap and teaching our defenses to mount a much more powerful response against the target that would have otherwise slipped right past us unnoticed.

To be perfectly honest, I had a completely different thought swirling around in my head just a second ago, but now? Now this has caught my attention too, and I find myself genuinely curious about where this is heading. 😁

Are we really expected to sit here and play psychic because you decided to drop a single word in a post and call it a day? It’s honestly exhausting. I feel like I’m staring at a blank wall trying to decipher some deep, hidden meaning that simply isn't there, and frankly, it feels like a bit of a waste of everyone's time. One would think that if someone takes the effort to hit "submit," they might actually provide enough context for the rest of us to engage in a coherent conversation, but apparently, that's asking too much from certain people around here.

Morgan Peterson said:Now, I find myself compelled to ask you for an answer to this rather condescending sermon—what is your own take on the differences regarding efficacy and safety among these three types of vaccines?
Because that distinction, whatever one might assume through a layman's lens, clearly dictates whether a person decides to accept a COVID shot or not.

When we start talking about actual efficacy, I think the elephant in the room—the massive, looming issue that everyone seems to be glossing over—is how these vector and mRNA vaccines operate. You see, they’re essentially laser-focused on targeting one single protein. Now, if you look at how a healthy, robust immune system actually functions during a natural infection, or even when dealing with those traditional, old-school vaccines we grew up with, the body doesn't just look at one isolated marker. It learns to differentiate between a genuine pathogen and harmless debris by analyzing a whole spectrum of characteristics. It’s a sophisticated, multi-layered recognition process, not some simplistic one-track mind. Now, I’ll play devil's advocate here because I don't want to sound like I'm just shouting into the void: perhaps with SARS-CoV-2, this narrow focus isn't the absolute dealbreaker people fear it might be. My reasoning is that since the spike protein is the primary driver of the whole mess, focusing there makes sense in a vacuum. And honestly, if we run into a situation where that specific protein undergoes a significant mutation, there's a very real possibility that the virus itself loses its edge and becomes far less dangerous to the general population. But we shouldn't mistake a temporary convenience for a foolproof biological strategy.

When we start talking about security, we really have to look at this through two distinct lenses:
Let’s talk about this whole spike protein situation, because I feel like we’re just scratching the surface of what’s actually happening inside our bodies. Now, look, whether you’re talking about mRNA or viral vector vaccines, both methods essentially instruct our own cells to produce that spike protein. But here is the kicker—and this is where things get messy—this produced protein isn't physically tethered to a viral envelope like it would be during an actual infection. For the longest time, the official line from the big pharmaceutical players was that these proteins wouldn't just wander off into the bloodstream, mostly because they assumed it simply couldn't happen. Well, hold on a second, because recent studies are starting to suggest that those initial assumptions might have been dead wrong. Now, I know what the skeptics will say immediately; they’ll argue that since the spike protein shows up in the bloodstream during a natural infection anyway, there shouldn't be a massive difference. But that completely ignores the fundamental mechanics of the thing! We have to ask ourselves: does a free-floating protein behave the exact same way as one that is firmly attached to a viral shell? It’s a massive distinction. And furthermore, we really need to figure out if this happens during milder cases of the illness too. Because if this phenomenon only occurs during the most severe, life-threatening stages of the disease, then that tired old argument—you know, the one where people claim "if the vaccine caused side effects, then the actual virus would have done even worse damage"—it just falls apart. It loses all its weight. Honestly, these manufacturers owe us some straight answers on this, and they should probably start providing them sooner rather than later.

Vector-based vaccines are still relatively fresh on the scene, and we’ve only seen a handful of them successfully brought to market, whereas those COVID shots actually represented the first major win for mRNA technology—not that we hadn't seen an FDA-approved drug using that same tech before, but this was a massive leap forward. Both of these platforms are essentially cutting-edge, and if there happen to be any long-term side effects lurking in the shadows, there is a very real, very significant chance we just haven't caught them yet. I mean, think about it: you could have something like an autoimmune disorder that creeps up on you incredibly slowly, only showing its face after several years of being completely asymptomatic. It’s a legitimate concern. We might even be looking at a situation where the exact same mechanism used in conjugated vaccines could potentially trigger such a disease; when we are essentially programming our own cells to produce an antigen, we are effectively tethering that antigen to our own cellular structure, which could act as a catalyst for anyone who already has a genetic predisposition to these kinds of issues.

Now, just so we’re all on the same page and there isn't any unnecessary confusion, I am not claiming that the spike protein behaves fundamentally differently when it isn't bound to its envelope, nor am I stating that an autoimmune disorder is a guaranteed outcome. However, it remains an undeniable fact that we simply lack the depth of data required to completely rule out these two possibilities, which inherently constitutes a risk born from our own informational deficit.

There is no question that the vaccine remains safe enough that seniors and those in high-risk categories due to chronic conditions should be getting vaccinated, even when you factor in that inherent uncertainty. But when we shift the conversation toward young, healthy individuals—people whose risk of developing severe COVID-19 is roughly a thousand times lower than that of the elderly or the infirm—then that specific risk becomes a massive variable that demands serious consideration, especially if the underlying logic is that they are being vaccinated for the sake of others rather than for their own protection.

The CDC in the States actually reached a similar conclusion, recommending that children aged 12-17 only be vaccinated if they have an underlying condition that puts them at higher risk or if they live with someone vulnerable who cannot be vaccinated. It’s a shame, really, because ultimately the final call rests with politicians instead of the scientific experts...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/child-adolescent.html

P.S. Regarding that whole "looking down from above" comment, woobie didn't actually ask about the implications of his statement; he just threw out a "So?" as a way of saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill vaccine. In response to a remark like that, one can only assume either that he's uninformed or that he's hinting at the kind of things people aren't supposed to mention under threat of losing their credentials. Given my own perspective and woobie's reputation, I opted for the safer assumption. Fine, it turns out he might have meant something else entirely, but the fact that he failed to express himself clearly is on him.

Carl Doyle92 said:I find myself wondering: at what point in the future will a vaccine be considered sufficiently researched and proven safe? Beyond that threshold, I see absolutely nothing wrong with vaccinating children, barring those parents who have already made a firm decision against all childhood immunizations.

And then there's the other question: at what point in time will these vaccines likely become completely obsolete...

Megan Green72 said:Then what is it?

Honestly, I find myself wondering if there is even any point in trying to explain the nuanced differences between traditional vaccines, viral vector platforms, and mRNA technology to someone who is clearly this deeply entrenched in this specific discussion. It feels almost redundant at this stage, doesn't it?

slyfox43 said:If we accept the idea that "perfidious extortion" refers to the notion that social fragmentation is tied to a declining infection rate—and that this decline reduces the overall risk for everyone, including children—then calling it "perfidious extortion" feels, well, rather perfidious itself. It still strikes me as a classic case of selfishness and the free-rider problem.

To me, "perfidious blackmail" implies infringing upon the liberties of those who choose not to be vaccinated. Look, if a vaccine is absolutely essential and proven safe, then making it mandatory is a valid policy; however, if it fails to meet those strict criteria for being mandatory, then it shouldn't be used as a justification to restrict anyone's freedom.

Furthermore, looking at the data from America, the decline in cases seems more closely tied to the high number of people who have already recovered and the arrival of warmer weather. At the start of this downturn, we had significantly fewer recoveries than vaccinations, yet you’re attributing this entire drop exclusively to the vaccine. What's interesting is that as vaccination rates continue to climb, the rate of decline actually slows down.

And let’s get one thing straight: I am not some anti-vaxxer claiming the vaccine slowed the descent. The decline is slowing naturally because it’s following a standard biological curve that we’ve observed countless times before. But, if vaccination were truly the dominant driver of this current trend compared to natural immunity and seasonality, we would see a massive acceleration in the decline as coverage nearly doubles, deviating sharply from that natural law. We simply aren't seeing that.

Yes, vaccination plays a role in the downward trend, but it isn't the primary engine driving it. If we hit a new wave this fall, then sure, vaccination will be a critical factor—either because enough people haven't recovered to provide herd immunity, or because that natural immunity is fading. However, if this autumn brings nothing more than sporadic cases with very few hospitalizations—especially when you filter out those hospitalized for other reasons who just happened to test positive—then we'll know the game is over.

slyfox43 said:The real question is whether you actually view these scientists as experts when they advise universal vaccination for adults, or if "expertise" is just a label we apply whenever their findings happen to align with our own preconceived notions.

If infection rates in Germany were to climb again and the CDC decided that vaccinating this age group was necessary to curb the surge, I suspect they’d instantly lose their expert status; suddenly, changing a recommendation would be framed as proof that "the experts have no clue what they're doing." It’s a predictable cycle—I’m not making a prophecy here, but I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

So, I wonder: do you actually support following these adult medical guidelines to prevent another spike in cases, or is your concern for children merely a convenient vehicle for anti-vax rhetoric?

The last time I took a look at this, the guidelines didn't mention anything about making it mandatory or even requiring a pre-vaccination lesson. Honestly, I’m on board with the recommendation itself—I think vaccination is generally a good move—but at the end of the day, it should be a personal call. Every individual should have the right to weigh the risks for themselves and make their own decision without being forced into it.

Personally, I’ve decided to just sit this one out for now. Looking at the current data, the statistical risk of the virus itself seems much lower than any potential side effects from the vaccine, so I'm playing it safe by waiting. That being said, I'm not making a permanent vow; if we see a spike in severe cases once autumn rolls around, I’ll definitely be heading in to get my shot.

To be perfectly honest, there wasn't even a formal recommendation for vaccinating children until recently, so the idea that they’re pulling back on it just because the numbers are dipping feels like a bit of a reach to me. If you look at the actual logic behind this, this decision isn't some panicked reaction to declining statistics; rather, it’s a direct response to the fact that we finally got the green light to approve vaccines for the younger demographic. It’s all about timing. I mean, think about it—if we suddenly see a new strain emerge that poses a significantly higher risk of influenza specifically for the little ones, then being back in a position where we can actually recommend those shots becomes absolutely essential. We have to stay prepared for those shifts in risk, otherwise, we're just flying blind when the next wave hits.

Alex Morales47 said:What a lovely little piece of journalism. I truly hope children from all the other states find the courage to follow in little Mara's footsteps.

Are you seriously suggesting that American news outlets possess more medical expertise than the scientists over in Germany? Because, last I checked, those German experts were quite clear: unless a child has specific underlying conditions that spike their risk for severe COVID-19, vaccination isn't even being recommended.

Dennis Hall41 said:So, 85% of you are Flat Earthers, huh? Honestly, it’s embarrassing—how can you just ignore science and refuse to step up for the greater good? I'm genuinely pissed. This whole thing feels way too much like that forum debate we had back in January, and seeing how things always blow up... I really want to know which side everyone's going to jump to when this exact same issue gets shoved down your throats by some stinky news outlets in a few months.

Before you go tossing around labels like "Flat Earther" at everyone—which is funny, because somehow you don't get banned for that, but if I used the actual term, I'd probably be kicked off the forum in a heartbeat—you might want to actually look at what the experts in Germany are saying:

STIKO stated in their official guidance that they only recommend vaccination for teenagers who have underlying medical issues that increase their risk of developing a severe case of coronavirus.

They clarified that they aren't currently advising the vaccine for healthy 12-to-17-year-olds, though they did mention that doctors still have the discretion to administer the shot if the patient is willing to accept the risks involved.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2021-06-10/

Germany has officially decided that children should only be vaccinated if they fall into a specific high-risk category for COVID:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2021-06-10/

Megan Green72 said:People kept droning on about long-term consequences—talking about 5+ years and all that. That’s what Phase 4 is for. Every single drug and vaccine goes through this. If you're gonna nitpick these vaccines based on that, then you gotta apply that logic to every other medicine out there too. ☕

Same goes for you—you were talking about 5+ years and long-term stuff. That's Phase 4. ☕

Look, certain long-term—or even mid-term—consequences can be caught during those extra rounds of testing typically performed before a standard Marketing Authorization, whereas with a CMA, they happen after the fact.

Naturally, it’s impossible to catch absolutely everything, especially those issues that take ages to actually manifest, but this process definitely bumps up the safety profile of the drug. Comparing this to drugs that went through a standard MA just isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, which is exactly why I felt the need to speak up.

Must have been a bad cup of coffee...

Megan Green72 said:Exactly. That's the famous Phase IV—it's always doneafter a drug or vaccine gets the green light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases...nical_research

Phase IV - Post marketing surveillance in public - Monitor long-term effects

So, what's the deal—do you have this same problem with every single medication and vaccine, or are you still being selective just with these ones?

Look, a CMA is granted for a drug or vaccine when the full suite of data required for a standard Marketing Authorization simply isn't available yet. You can play around with the definitions of different phases all you want, but the blunt reality remains: for the COVID-19 vaccines, we lack the exact data sets typically demanded for a standard MA. Because of that, they aren't even in the same category as those other drugs that hold a standard MA, even if both groups share the commonality of ongoing monitoring for rare side effects.

stormymarlin12 said:An announcement from my high school:

Regarding how classes will run once we get back from Spring Break:

Basically, until we hear otherwise or get some actual updated guidelines, seniors are still heading into the classroom for in-person learning, while all the freshmen, sophomores, and juniors are stuck stuck on Microsoft Teams!

I am sincerely hoping you're just paraphrasing this in your own words, because if this was actually drafted by some bureaucrat working in the Department of Education, then we are truly in a state of total absurdity...

If you need a little more context to wrap your head around this:

Quoting:

if you look at the actual mechanics behind this move, it isn't some sudden reaction to a public health crisis—as much as people love to jump to those dramatic conclusions—but rather a direct consequence of a crumbling economy and a massive hole in the federal budget that's left them unable to cover civil service salaries.

It’s the same story here in the States and across the entire USA; the whole app concept just tanked because it was fundamentally broken. You could end up stuck in mandatory self-isolation based on a single digital contact trace that lacks any actual substance or detail. Even worse, you face this kind of emotional blackmail where people pressure you to stay home without providing a shred of official paperwork, leaving you totally stranded when you try to explain to your boss why you can't show up or when you're trying to claim sick pay and benefits.

The idea of testing contacts and letting them go about their lives once they test negative actually makes sense to me. People shouldn't be threatened with isolation just because their phone happened to be near an infected person's device, even if they were just in adjacent rooms.