Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

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?

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.

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.

bluerider63 said:Yesterday’s coverage on FOX was honestly a total joke, watching them film those kids over in Cleveland talking about how they "believe in science," including this 12-year-old girl named Mara who claims she's "finally free."

The absolute state of the media here and their political hacks.

Seeing this link really reminded me why I finally gave up on watching the trash that passes for local news.

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.

What does an infection rate even mean when 99% of the population passes through it without a second thought? It means absolutely nothing. Besides, vaccines don't stop you from catching it; they just supposedly help your body handle the hit, though for certain age groups, that help seems entirely redundant, doesn't it? Isn't the only real reason they're pushing this on everyone, everywhere, just to line the pockets of Big Pharma with billions, which eventually trickles down as bribes to politicians and whatever passes for "experts" these days?

What am I supposed to make of a figure like 600,000 deaths within a population of 328 million, especially when the vast majority never even contracted the virus? It seems some folks on this forum enjoy theorizing from perspectives that are quite biologically impossible.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...es/burden.html

slyfox43 said:What am I supposed to make of a figure like 600,000 deaths within a population of 328 million, especially when the vast majority never even contracted the virus? It seems some folks on this forum enjoy theorizing from perspectives that are quite biologically impossible.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...es/burden.html

So, are we really supposed to believe unvaccinated children are responsible for those 600,000 deaths?

Ah, my apologies, I didn't quite catch your pivot on those arguments.

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: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.

And let's not forget, this time last year, we managed to beat COVID without even needing vaccines... hmmm... see, there's the rub right there. They completely burned their credibility with the public; nobody believes a single word they say anymore. Plus, look at what's happening over in the UK (either the vaccines are useless or the virus is mutating into some MP3 file... whatever it is, it's harmless to most people now).

The real mess caused by all this recent vaccine fallout is how much people have lost faith in any kind of authority—political, moral, or scientific. It’s happened way too often where scientists act more like mercenaries, tweaking their data just to boost their own status or bank accounts. They hide behind this dense jargon that regular folks can't follow, basically tailoring their results to please whoever is cutting the checks... which completely kills the whole point of research.

We’re living in a society where nobody trusts anyone or anything anymore.

When the general public—who aren't exactly experts trained to dissect complex scientific theories—starts questioning if vaccines are even necessary, it’s because they’ve realized those massive medical and technical studies are often written in a specialized "meta-language." Behind all that authoritative sounding talk, it’s pretty obvious that the goal isn't truth or excellence, but rather serving the specific financial interests of the people funding them.

So, even when there’s a legitimate, rational need for vaccinations like we have now, the average person can't help but feel skeptical given everything they know.

Sure, it’s easy to just blame the religious zealots or flat-earthers, but that’s just burying our heads in the sand.

A lot of scientists are actually to blame for this loss of trust, destroying the credibility that legends like Andrija Štampar worked so hard to build by fighting against old-school prejudices.

It’s fine to mock the confused "little guy" in a world that seems to have lost its ideals, but what are we supposed to say about the scientific authorities who are easily bought, vain, greedy, and obsessed with power and self-promotion?

That’s exactly right. Labeling everyone with a differing opinion as "flat-earthers" or "anti-vaxxers" didn't solve a thing—it just shut down the conversation. Science is supposed to be an open book, constantly questioning itself, and let's face it, it gets things wrong quite often. But instead of embracing that uncertainty, there was this attempt to wrap it in a halo of absolute sanctity, using it as a weapon to bash anyone perceived as a "non-thinker." At the end of the day, science is just as susceptible to corruption as anything else out there.

Ronald Chavez2 said:What does an infection rate even mean when 99% of the population passes through it without a second thought? It means absolutely nothing. Besides, vaccines don't stop you from catching it; they just supposedly help your body handle the hit, though for certain age groups, that help seems entirely redundant, doesn't it? Isn't the only real reason they're pushing this on everyone, everywhere, just to line the pockets of Big Pharma with billions, which eventually trickles down as bribes to politicians and whatever passes for "experts" these days?

Your logic is honestly fascinating. Every vaccine works by training the body to fight an enemy so that when it actually shows up, the system knows how to crush it immediately. And that—right there—is why we say it protects against infection.
So yeah, vaccines protect you. Maybe what you were trying to get at is that they aren't 100% foolproof, or that some people won't build immunity or will only get partial protection and end up getting sick regardless.
Also, you clearly don't grasp how percentages work—0.1% of a billion is way more than 90% of a hundred, even if 90% sounds scarier to people who don't do math.

Megan Green72 said:Your logic is honestly fascinating. Every vaccine works by training the body to fight an enemy so that when it actually shows up, the system knows how to crush it immediately. And that—right there—is why we say it protects against infection.
So yeah, vaccines protect you. Maybe what you were trying to get at is that they aren't 100% foolproof, or that some people won't build immunity or will only get partial protection and end up getting sick regardless.
Also, you clearly don't grasp how percentages work—0.1% of a billion is way more than 90% of a hundred, even if 90% sounds scarier to people who don't do math.

The COVID-19 vaccine doesn't stop you from catching the virus; it stops you from getting deathly ill. Like Beroš would put it, it keeps you from ending up in the ICU.
But sure, you can still get infected, and you can still pass it on to others... so calling it "protection from infection" isn't quite right.

Am I missing something here?

You aren't... and then comes the inevitable "but" for 5, 4, 3...

Jesse Hughes6 said:You aren't... and then comes the inevitable "but" for 5, 4, 3...

There shouldn't be a "but"... at least, there really shouldn't be.

Rachel Barrett8 said:The COVID-19 vaccine doesn't stop you from catching the virus; it stops you from getting deathly ill. Like Beroš would put it, it keeps you from ending up in the ICU.
But sure, you can still get infected, and you can still pass it on to others... so calling it "protection from infection" isn't quite right.

Am I missing something here?

Nah, you nailed it. We're talking about what people call "leaky vaccines," which might actually make things worse in the long run. There was a ton of writing on this back in the Pre-COVID days. Check this out:

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...viruses-072715

But honestly, let's just move past that for a second. 😵😵
Anyone pulling moves like this right now is either incredibly dim-witted or a freaking genius. 😁

Samuel Turner2 said:Nah, you nailed it. We're talking about what people call "leaky vaccines," which might actually make things worse in the long run. There was a ton of writing on this back in the Pre-COVID days. Check this out:

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...viruses-072715

But honestly, let's just move past that for a second. 😵😵
Anyone pulling moves like this right now is either incredibly dim-witted or a freaking genius. 😁

Honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to watch.

I’m not trying to drag anyone into a full-blown conspiracy theory or a disinformation frenzy, but plenty of studies have already confirmed that vaccinated individuals face a significantly lower risk of infection—not just avoiding severe illness, but preventing transmission altogether if they don't catch it in the first place. This is just the icing on the cake, rather than the main course, when you consider the clinical benefits of vaccination if an infection does occur.

It is much less exhausting to dump a pile of nonsense into the world than it is to spend your time debunking it, which gives certain groups a built-in advantage. Even though the direct benefits of vaccination are thoroughly researched and documented, scientists tend to shy away from making categorical claims unless they can confirm them through direct experimental proof, even when the conclusion is obvious from existing data. Because other fields of human endeavor aren't held to such rigid standards, people will stubbornly cling to any "hunch" they have, even when the mountain of evidence proves them wrong.

slyfox43 said:I’m not trying to drag anyone into a full-blown conspiracy theory or a disinformation frenzy, but plenty of studies have already confirmed that vaccinated individuals face a significantly lower risk of infection—not just avoiding severe illness, but preventing transmission altogether if they don't catch it in the first place. This is just the icing on the cake, rather than the main course, when you consider the clinical benefits of vaccination if an infection does occur.

It is much less exhausting to dump a pile of nonsense into the world than it is to spend your time debunking it, which gives certain groups a built-in advantage. Even though the direct benefits of vaccination are thoroughly researched and documented, scientists tend to shy away from making categorical claims unless they can confirm them through direct experimental proof, even when the conclusion is obvious from existing data. Because other fields of human endeavor aren't held to such rigid standards, people will stubbornly cling to any "hunch" they have, even when the mountain of evidence proves them wrong.

So, are the side effects—both short-term and long-term—of these mRNA vaccines actually well-researched?
I honestly don't get why some people try to play both sides by being anti-vax while simultaneously acting skeptical about vaccines that haven't even officially cleared the standard testing procedures yet. Can someone please explain the logic there to me? 🤔
It’s exactly like saying I don't trust aviation just because I refuse to hop on a half-tested nuclear-powered plane built out of plastic wings and a fuselage. Yeah, I’m terrified of flying in THAT specific plane, and no, I don't trust it one bit—but that doesn't mean I have an issue with aviation in general.

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?🤔