Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID?

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.

Right, and I guess the accuracy of those studies was "proven" by all the nursing homes over in our neighboring states, where tons of residents who were already vaccinated still got hit hard.
I think I'll trust my own eyes over some funded study any day.
Maybe you're just choosing to believe the studies because it suits your interests, or maybe you're just being misled.

But anyway, let's set that aside—does looking at this poll bum you out?

Samuel Turner2 said: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?🤔

Of course they find it hard to believe—it’s basically impossible for them—so there’s really no point in wasting your breath anymore.

Sent from my old Sony Xperia using Tapatalk

briskowl24 said:Right, and I guess the accuracy of those studies was "proven" by all the nursing homes over in our neighboring states, where tons of residents who were already vaccinated still got hit hard.
I think I'll trust my own eyes over some funded study any day.
Maybe you're just choosing to believe the studies because it suits your interests, or maybe you're just being misled.

But anyway, let's set that aside—does looking at this poll bum you out?

I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.

Morgan Peterson said:I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.

Those are some pretty dangerous views. Do you ever actually question your own?

Right now, if you use terms like "bunker dwellers," "coviders," or "mask enthusiasts," you’re basically asking for a moderator ban.
It’s funny how they don't seem to care when people start labeling everyone else as irrelevant or marginal, though. That seems perfectly fine by their standards.
#newnormal
#pandemicisHere

Samuel Turner2 said: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?🤔

It isn't, though this whole situation is a strange gray area where it's hard to tell what's truly unprecedented. That said, the post you're quoting doesn't attempt a legitimate risk assessment based on the data we have; instead, it relies on twisting known facts and blatant distortions.

briskowl24 said:Right, and I guess the accuracy of those studies was "proven" by all the nursing homes over in our neighboring states, where tons of residents who were already vaccinated still got hit hard.
I think I'll trust my own eyes over some funded study any day.
Maybe you're just choosing to believe the studies because it suits your interests, or maybe you're just being misled.

But anyway, let's set that aside—does looking at this poll bum you out?

I don't live in America, nor do I have any intention of visiting right now, so the answer is no—unless we’re talking about the general human capacity for self-destruction, which is a depressing thought in its own right. We’ll see how things shake out in a few years; until then, it's just a matter of survival. There are certainly people like that here too, but given how divided things are in my neck of the woods (for instance, about 83% of adults here have had at least one dose, and our infection rates have plummeted tenfold over the last month), there are still some pockets of relative rationality, thank goodness.

I truly feel for those who haven't managed to distance themselves from that conspiracy-minded crowd—the very group that motivated me to say goodbye all those years ago.

Morgan Peterson said:I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.

Whoa, hold on. New math alert: apparently, a potential 20-30% unvaccinated population is an "insignificant and massive minority"?

MASSIVE? Really?

INSIGNIFICANT? Isn't every single life—every single vote—supposedly valuable? Or was that just something our leaders used to say to win us over...

For those of you pushing the vaccine, you're framing this as if people are being forced into it. In reality, the situation is almost the opposite; rights are being stripped away to pressure people into compliance because the people in charge lack the backbone to simply declare vaccination mandatory.

Another thing: Pre-COVID, childhood vaccination rates were sitting around 92-93%.

That leaves 8% as "anti-vaxxers."
THOSE are the anti-vaxxers.

In a situation where you're left with 30% of people who simply choose not to vaccinate, labeling them all "anti-vaxxers" is incredibly rude and quite frankly, shameless.

The vast majority of those people gave the most precious thing they have—their children—to the needle during "peaceful" times, only to be called anti-vaxxers by people like you.

It's disgraceful.

And look, I don't have anything against the rate reaching 70 or 80%.

But the moment my employer—pressured by a government that refuses to take responsibility—starts making my job conditional on vaccination, or a grocery store blocks me from entering because of it, while the state continues to insist that vaccination isn't mandatory, I’ll tell anyone pushing or supporting these tactics exactly what they are: human garbage.

silverpuma61 said:The remaining 8% are anti-vaxxers.
THOSE are the anti-vaxxers.

I mean, when you're left with 30% of people who just don't want this specific shot, calling them all anti-vaxxers is just incredibly rude. It's shameless, really.

Labeling someone an anti-vaxxer—when they’ve spent their whole life getting every single vaccine available EXCEPT for this one COVID one—is about as ridiculous as calling a straight guy gay just because he isn't into one specific woman, even if he's attracted to a million others.

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. 😁

So, let's not overlook what this article actually points out:

“In the United States and Europe, the birds that get avian influenza are culled, so no further evolution of the virus is possible,” Read said.

He noted that culling is a much pricier endeavor than deploying a leaky vaccine, but argued it offers better safety.

It’s a bit like saying if a kid gets sick, we should just burn down the entire neighborhood to ensure nobody else catches it—it’s certainly a way to stay safe.

“Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.

Back in the 1950s, Mark’s disease was a minor nuisance for poultry, but the virus has evolved significantly; today, it can wipe out an entire flock of unvaccinated birds in as little as ten days.

However, since almost every chicken in industrial farming worldwide is vaccinated, Mark’s disease remains a relatively manageable issue today.

I wonder if anyone on this forum actually reads the links provided. Is it really possible for someone to be so blinded by their own perspective that they fail to see how their logical conclusions fly in the face of the very evidence they're citing?

The vaccine is finally here—something people have been clamoring for months. People are getting their shots, and honestly, that’s fine. But as for kids? I’m not an advocate for vaccinating them, nor would I personally do it. The only exception, obviously, would be if they were facing severe underlying health issues that made them vulnerable to COVID, the flu, or similar threats.
I’ve taken my shot myself. If this doesn't get me, something else will eventually. People died in wars by the thousands, yet nobody's out there screaming about it. Death is a reality; it always has been and always will be. For now, vaccination remains optional, and the trend seems to be that older folks—specifically those over 40—are the ones opting in, mostly because that's when health issues actually start creeping in. Look, aging is a natural process; you can't expect a 60-year-old's immune system to perform like a 20-year-old's.
Vaccinating healthy children won't even be an issue here since it isn't going to be standard practice. However, I do support vaccinating children who are already battling serious illnesses, as it could protect them from much harsher complications due to their compromised immunity.

slyfox43 said:So, let's not overlook what this article actually points out:

“In the United States and Europe, the birds that get avian influenza are culled, so no further evolution of the virus is possible,” Read said.

He noted that culling is a much pricier endeavor than deploying a leaky vaccine, but argued it offers better safety.

It’s a bit like saying if a kid gets sick, we should just burn down the entire neighborhood to ensure nobody else catches it—it’s certainly a way to stay safe.

“Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.

Back in the 1950s, Mark’s disease was a minor nuisance for poultry, but the virus has evolved significantly; today, it can wipe out an entire flock of unvaccinated birds in as little as ten days.

However, since almost every chicken in industrial farming worldwide is vaccinated, Mark’s disease remains a relatively manageable issue today.

I wonder if anyone on this forum actually reads the links provided. Is it really possible for someone to be so blinded by their own perspective that they fail to see how their logical conclusions fly in the face of the very evidence they're citing?

Looks like you’re the only one who hasn't caught on. Quit flexing your English skills so hard; I’ll break this down for you in plain American English since you're struggling.

Basically, here's the deal—you've manufactured a massive headache here through vaccination that wouldn't have even been an issue if things had stayed minor. But then, in some stroke of genius, you wrap up your sentence by basically saying, "Oh well, at least it's not a real problem because it only affects the unvaccinated."

In short: you created a problem that didn't exist in the first place, and then you just shrug and say, "Whatever, it's fine, only the unvaccinated will die anyway."

If we apply that logic to actual people, it’s like saying, "Yeah, we created a mess with the vaccines, but it's no biggie because it'll only kill the people who aren't vaccinated" (and god forbid, there's a huge chunk of the population who physically can't or shouldn't get shots for various reasons).

Real humanitarian and empathetic of you. Truly.

#newnormal

Also, love how you jump straight from "thank goodness" to your own twisted conclusions. Real smooth.

Drew Gonzalez5 said:Those are some pretty dangerous views. Do you ever actually question your own?

Every single day. Though, I suspect we aren't exactly questioning the same things, are we?

silverpuma61 said:Whoa, hold on. New math alert: apparently, a potential 20-30% unvaccinated population is an "insignificant and massive minority"?

MASSIVE? Really?

INSIGNIFICANT? Isn't every single life—every single vote—supposedly valuable? Or was that just something our leaders used to say to win us over...

For those of you pushing the vaccine, you're framing this as if people are being forced into it. In reality, the situation is almost the opposite; rights are being stripped away to pressure people into compliance because the people in charge lack the backbone to simply declare vaccination mandatory.

Another thing: Pre-COVID, childhood vaccination rates were sitting around 92-93%.

That leaves 8% as "anti-vaxxers."
THOSE are the anti-vaxxers.

In a situation where you're left with 30% of people who simply choose not to vaccinate, labeling them all "anti-vaxxers" is incredibly rude and quite frankly, shameless.

The vast majority of those people gave the most precious thing they have—their children—to the needle during "peaceful" times, only to be called anti-vaxxers by people like you.

It's disgraceful.

And look, I don't have anything against the rate reaching 70 or 80%.

But the moment my employer—pressured by a government that refuses to take responsibility—starts making my job conditional on vaccination, or a grocery store blocks me from entering because of it, while the state continues to insist that vaccination isn't mandatory, I’ll tell anyone pushing or supporting these tactics exactly what they are: human garbage.

Try to dial down the drama and read more carefully what I actually wrote—I was talking about that roughly 8 percent, not 30%. 🙄

Morgan Peterson said:I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.

I guess those who aren't getting vaccinated actually have the upper hand here for one practical reason: they still have options. Once you've taken the shot, you don't really have a choice on this matter anymore. You'll see.

slyfox43 said:I don't live in America, nor do I have any intention of visiting right now, so the answer is no—unless we’re talking about the general human capacity for self-destruction, which is a depressing thought in its own right. We’ll see how things shake out in a few years; until then, it's just a matter of survival. There are certainly people like that here too, but given how divided things are in my neck of the woods (for instance, about 83% of adults here have had at least one dose, and our infection rates have plummeted tenfold over the last month), there are still some pockets of relative rationality, thank goodness.

I truly feel for those who haven't managed to distance themselves from that conspiracy-minded crowd—the very group that motivated me to say goodbye all those years ago.

It's nice of you to care about America, even if you seem pretty fed up with it...
and where I live, along the Adriatic Sea, there are almost no active cases at all.

Samuel Turner2 said: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?🤔

If everyone shared your mindset, we wouldn't have airplanes, advanced technology, or even bicycles. Someone had to step up, invent things, and get moving; otherwise, our streets would still be covered in dust instead of paved with asphalt. Vaccine efficacy was tested for a period of time, and it proved they work at preventing the most severe outcomes. As for the fact that they haven't been studied on millions of people yet—well, there simply wasn't enough time, so they left it to voluntary participation. You either take the shot or you don't. Who is going to wait five years to test a vaccine when the need is IMMEDIATE??? Did you write a letter to the troops during a war saying, "Please, don't attack us right away; wait five years until we can arm ourselves properly so we can fight better"? Look, brother, the war has already started. You go out to fight with a hundred-year-old relic, knowing full well your chances of hitting anything are slim. If we all thought like you, we’d currently be living in a version of the Republic of Mexico that stretched all the way to the Adriatic Sea.
History will eventually reveal whether it was smart to vaccinate or not. Personally, I know at least ten people who would have jumped at the chance to take the vaccine if they had known the reality of COVID—people who ended up on oxygen for ten days, barely able to breathe, and heaven knows what the long-term effects on their bodies might be. Of course, someone who merely sneezed twice during an infection is going to downplay the severity; after all, they were lucky enough to avoid the worst of it.

Quincy:

Morgan Peterson As stated by: Maybe try to dial back the drama a little and give my last post another careful read. I’m actually talking about that 8% figure, not 30%. 🙄

Are you trying to say that when you wrote...

Morgan Peterson said:I have been keeping a close eye on this vaccination poll since the very first discussions regarding the virus surfaced, and honestly, the numbers haven't budged much; it looked almost identical back then, with nearly 70 percent opposed and a timid 30 percent in favor.

Now, considering that the rollout is already well underway—with over 500,233 people having received at least one dose—why would we expect a sudden shift in sentiment here? It might move at a glacial pace, certainly, but eventually, we will reach that targeted 70% threshold, if not surpass it.
After all, people are watching the vaccinated and seeing that nothing catastrophic is happening, which proves that life can actually return to a semblance of normalcy.

In the end, we will be left with only a handful of stubborn, fringe anti-vaxxers, who, frankly, represent nothing more than an insignificant and loud minority.

Do you really think it’s realistic to assume that 92% of the population will actually end up getting vaccinated? I mean, I guess one could hope, but I seriously doubt it.

If we ever actually hit that 75% mark without them rolling out some "vaccinate or lose your job" mandate or a "get the shot or you can't even buy bread" rule, then I guess I owe everyone an apology. 🍿

Jason Kern63 said:If everyone shared your mindset, we wouldn't have airplanes, advanced technology, or even bicycles. Someone had to step up, invent things, and get moving; otherwise, our streets would still be covered in dust instead of paved with asphalt. Vaccine efficacy was tested for a period of time, and it proved they work at preventing the most severe outcomes. As for the fact that they haven't been studied on millions of people yet—well, there simply wasn't enough time, so they left it to voluntary participation. You either take the shot or you don't. Who is going to wait five years to test a vaccine when the need is IMMEDIATE??? Did you write a letter to the troops during a war saying, "Please, don't attack us right away; wait five years until we can arm ourselves properly so we can fight better"? Look, brother, the war has already started. You go out to fight with a hundred-year-old relic, knowing full well your chances of hitting anything are slim. If we all thought like you, we’d currently be living in a version of the Republic of Mexico that stretched all the way to the Adriatic Sea.
History will eventually reveal whether it was smart to vaccinate or not. Personally, I know at least ten people who would have jumped at the chance to take the vaccine if they had known the reality of COVID—people who ended up on oxygen for ten days, barely able to breathe, and heaven knows what the long-term effects on their bodies might be. Of course, someone who merely sneezed twice during an infection is going to downplay the severity; after all, they were lucky enough to avoid the worst of it.

Drop the war comparisons and try coming up with something smarter. And for the record, people were leaving and then returning from their service in Munich. A person has their own views; respect them.

driftingstag84 said:Drop the war comparisons and try coming up with something smarter. And for the record, people were leaving and then returning from their service in Munich. A person has their own views; respect them.

The point isn't about someone's opinion; it’s about the sheer urgency of the situation. Urgency implies necessity. You don't have the luxury of sitting around waiting for five years of clinical trials when you're dealing with an immediate crisis. Every single "emergency" vaccine developed to date has followed this exact same accelerated timeline because you simply can't wait half a decade. Urgent means urgent. No one is ignoring the volunteers who stepped up to get jabbed first just to ensure we eventually had a vaccine we could somewhat trust. And let's be real: nothing is 100% safe, not even a Hershey bar. That's exactly why it isn't mandatory. Plus, nobody has been fired for refusing the shot yet, nor is it being marketed as some sort of magic shield against everything. It's still the PCR test you need to show when you're boarding a flight, for instance. What we do know is that it keeps people out of the hospital, and that's the bottom line. As for anything else? We'll see how things play out this winter and in the years to come.

Jason Kern63 said:The point isn't about someone's opinion; it’s about the sheer urgency of the situation. Urgency implies necessity. You don't have the luxury of sitting around waiting for five years of clinical trials when you're dealing with an immediate crisis. Every single "emergency" vaccine developed to date has followed this exact same accelerated timeline because you simply can't wait half a decade. Urgent means urgent. No one is ignoring the volunteers who stepped up to get jabbed first just to ensure we eventually had a vaccine we could somewhat trust. And let's be real: nothing is 100% safe, not even a Hershey bar. That's exactly why it isn't mandatory. Plus, nobody has been fired for refusing the shot yet, nor is it being marketed as some sort of magic shield against everything. It's still the PCR test you need to show when you're boarding a flight, for instance. What we do know is that it keeps people out of the hospital, and that's the bottom line. As for anything else? We'll see how things play out this winter and in the years to come.

Are you kidding me right now???

silverpuma61 said:Quincy:

Morgan Peterson As stated by: Maybe try to dial back the drama a little and give my last post another careful read. I’m actually talking about that 8% figure, not 30%. 🙄

Are you trying to say that when you wrote...

Do you really think it’s realistic to assume that 92% of the population will actually end up getting vaccinated? I mean, I guess one could hope, but I seriously doubt it.

If we ever actually hit that 75% mark without them rolling out some "vaccinate or lose your job" mandate or a "get the shot or you can't even buy bread" rule, then I guess I owe everyone an apology. 🍿

I didn't really want to reply to her using that angle—you know, suggesting that if it wasn't for all the restrictions and coercion driven by pure fear of the virus, maybe no more than 30% of people would have gotten the shot.

I held back because, honestly, people who push those kinds of mandates see that pressure as a totally legitimate part of managing an epidemic, and they think those measures are perfectly justified ways to drive up vaccination numbers.