Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

Matthew Jackson2 said: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 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.

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.

Matthew Jackson2 said:

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.

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.

A+ post, absolutely top-tier!

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

Honestly, there aren't any priorities left to talk about. That kind of logic belongs in the early days when we were scrambling for vaccines, but that's old news now.
Everything is flipped. We have more doses than we know what to do with, way more than there are people actually lining up for them.

And let's be real, the healthcare system hasn't actually been overwhelmed at any point—not even during those questionable lockdowns last year.
If anything, hospitals were pretty quiet back then.
The real issue with our medical system is just massive disorganization. I'm getting this from an inside source, by the way—hospital wards were being merged, moved, shifted back, moved again, just a constant cycle.
Naturally, that creates total chaos. But it wasn't chaos caused by COVID-19; it was just pure chaos caused by bad management and nonsensical decisions.

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.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

She’s completely lost it😲
I mean, tossing around the idea of mandatory mass vaccination for entire classrooms? Only someone incredibly ignorant—or straight-up authoritarian—would be that reckless.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

Look, you can't just go around dragging entire classrooms into this without getting explicit consent from the parents first.

I’m curious to hear the perspectives of those among you—healthy young parents who choose not to vaccinate your children, and don't even bother with annual flu shots yourselves—yet you still decide to get vaccinated against COVID-19. What's the reasoning there? Why opt for the COVID-19 vaccine while opting out of the rest? Do you truly feel you're facing a significantly higher level of risk?

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

I’ve been censored once before for speaking my mind regarding childhood vaccinations, but I find myself compelled to say it again.
They will have to go through me—dead and buried—before they touch my children with those needles.
You might want to make a note of that in your reports for your superiors...
You are playing with fire....

briskdrifter3 said:I’ve been censored once before for speaking my mind regarding childhood vaccinations, but I find myself compelled to say it again.
They will have to go through me—dead and buried—before they touch my children with those needles.
You might want to make a note of that in your reports for your superiors...
You are playing with fire....

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.
.
.

wanderingfox86 said:I’m curious to hear the perspectives of those among you—healthy young parents who choose not to vaccinate your children, and don't even bother with annual flu shots yourselves—yet you still decide to get vaccinated against COVID-19. What's the reasoning there? Why opt for the COVID-19 vaccine while opting out of the rest? Do you truly feel you're facing a significantly higher level of risk?

I don't get it either. You're fine with getting injected during an experimental phase, but somehow you're protecting your kids.
I mean, if God forbid something goes sideways for you—like a bad reaction or permanent disability—who's actually going to step up for those kids? The parents? The grandparents? The very same people who already took the shot.

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.
.
.

Maybe try explaining that thought process, if you're actually capable of it.

briskdrifter3 said:I’ve been censored once before for speaking my mind regarding childhood vaccinations, but I find myself compelled to say it again.
They will have to go through me—dead and buried—before they touch my children with those needles.
You might want to make a note of that in your reports for your superiors...
You are playing with fire....

Don't worry, most people actually agree with you on this matter.😉

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.
.
.

You aren't even worth a response... I hope you don't have children, for their sake.😢

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

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.

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...

Ethan Campbell81 said:Don't worry, most people actually agree with you on this matter.😉

You aren't even worth a response... I hope you don't have children, for their sake.😢

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.
.
.

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: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.

And what about all those other mandatory childhood vaccines up until now?
Parental consent doesn't carry much weight when it comes to kids' health, especially since most parents don't have the specialized training or deep knowledge required anyway.

By the way, check what the European Court of Human Rights says about this:
https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obl...ary/a-57128443

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled on Thursday that compulsory vaccinations would not contravene human rights law — and May be necessary in democratic societies.

The ruling came following the evaluation of a complaint brought to the court by Czech families regarding compulsory jabs for children.

"The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'" the court judgment read.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

Oh yeah? And just how many kids was that measles vaccine actually tested on before it even got the green light?

Matthew Jackson2 said: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.

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.
.
.

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.
.
.

Here is another one dealing with measles.🤦
I see how it is. You clearly lack the capacity for independent thought. Your entire worldview is shaped by the BBC, local news stations, and whatever trending nonsense is on the feed. Fine. Continue with your delusions. Have a nice day.