Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Schmidlap :
I am fairly certain that infectious disease does not function along homeopathic principles
I didn't get it either, a talking head on the news was going on about it. I know that if you're infected by some viruses they can reduce the odds of you getting infected by another virus, I didn't understand how covid could protect an entire population from getting infected by the flu. I probably should have googled before posting it here. 
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
They claim the Norwegian Agency of Medicines Website states 23. I haven't seen the website so I cannot verify. It also states they we elderly patients, who are both the group they are wanting to vaccinate first and the group most likely to die of...well, almost anything.
Here's that web site in english if you want to check the source of your story for us: https://legemiddelverket.no/english
(If it isn't there, please edit, or delete your post of potential Russian propaganda.)
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:There's also, you know, maybe, just a chance, that the big push for all the flu vaccinations has actually assisted the real impact of very few real flu cases...
Id be more interested in if that big push actually affected the number of actual flu vaccinations.... that number might have the effect you are implying. The push really doesn't. Although since advertising does work, I guess, you know, maybe, just a chance, it might.
In reply to 03Panther :
Yeah it would be an interesting study that I obviously haven't done.
It was just funny to me that the doctor cited all the reasons that may have lead to a slow flu season except the fact that there was a push to seriously increase the number of flu vaccines given.
This article does claim that we have already given significantly more flu shots this year than last. (2019-2020 flu season vs 2020-2021 flu season).
They attribute the low flu cases to guess what? More vaccines plus masks, plus distancing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/flu-numbers-year-due-higher-vaccination-rates-amid/story%3fid=74783195
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I've never followed the numbers on the flu shots. Intresting info though.
Ive never has the flu shot. I seem to get sick about the same amount as people I know that do get it. Nit never, but not real often, either. My informal, annticdotial (is that really a word?) evidence shows me the people that do get it average about the same odds as those that don't. I have nothing against it, and would not recomend against taking it. But I would not recomend for, either.
My mom and dad (group 1b) are scheduled for their shots on Wednesday. My middlest daughter told my mom that after mom gets her second shot, she's going to hug her for - and I quote - "forever".
I was informed that I have the option of being part of the 1b group as an essential worker. I plan to take advantage of it.
My father is is in his 80s and has macular degeneration. He would like to see his older sister who lives 3 states away again before he is completely blind. I will do what I have to do make that happen. We had planned to go before Christmas last year, but decided it was too risky until we are all vaccinated.
[Sarcasm]
If I have to grow a 3rd eye on my forehead, then so be it.
[/Sarcasm to reflect potential "side effect as seen on TV" and bring a bit of levity to this E36 M3 show of a thread.]
In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
The search function doesn't work there with English, and my Norwegian isn't all that great, but Bloomberg is posting an article indicating the same thing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-over-80
"Of those deaths, 13 have so far been autopsied with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency."
I'm personally in one of the earlier groups based on asthma and lung conditions. I'd rather wait and see what side effects do to people in my position, but because I haven't really worked since march and the bulk of my work is in homes of elderly compromised people doing bathroom accessibility modifications so I really think i'll just jump when they tell me I can and hope for the best. Lack of long term data or studies has me nervous that the vaccine may just kill us all in the next year or five, but at the same time i feel a responsibility to the people i provide a service to
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
The search function doesn't work there with English, and my Norwegian isn't all that great, but Bloomberg is posting an article indicating the same thing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-over-80
"Of those deaths, 13 have so far been autopsied with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency."
Thanks for taking a moment to follow up. The headline of the link you posted "Norway: 23 Dead after Receiving Pfizer, BioNTech Vaccine" was misleading and inflammatory. Your statement " Warrants further investigation." was correct. My concern is that much of the public is likely to see a headline like that and spread the headline rather than the truth and facts behind it.
Today, Jan 15th, the Statens legemiddelverk, publicly released the statement which the stories referred to as a source. Here's a link to the actual document: https://legemiddelverket.no/nyheter/covid-19-vaccination-associated-with-deaths-in-elderly-people-who-are-frail
My preferred quote, " We cannot rule out that adverse reactions to the vaccine occurring within the first days following vaccination (such as fever and nausea) may contribute to more serious course and fatal outcome in patients with severe underlying disease. "
In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
I'm curious, how is a factual statement misleading or inflammatory?
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
I'm curious, how is a factual statement misleading or inflammatory?
The statement implies that 23 people were killed by the vaccine. The source document states that they had a severe underlying disease and that typical reactions to a vaccine such as fever or nausea may have been a contributing factor in their death - not the cause. Six months from now, thousands of people of all ages will have died 'after taking the vaccine'. Many of those same people will have died 'after drinking a cup of coffee every day' or 'after driving a Chevy'. Far in the future, "Toyman01 died after repainting an old bus" will be a factual statement. Some people will fear repainting old busses after reading that. ...and they probably should.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
I'm curious, how is a factual statement misleading or inflammatory?
"Norway: 23 Dead after Receiving Pfizer, BioNTech Vaccine"
I immediately think - well, it is Norway, so we're going to assume they're healthy people. WTF is going on? Did they get a bad batch? Is the vaccine actually dangerous and we berkeleyed up big time? I go on to read in the article this:
“These cases are not alarming. It is clear that this vaccine has a very small risk factor, with few exceptions when it comes to elderly patients who suffer from poor health,” the Norwegian channel “RK” quoted the agency’s spokesman Steinar Madsen as saying.
"23 dead after receiving the vaccine" does not correspond to a very small risk factor when you first read it - and most aren't going to read the article. They're just going to read the headline.
Conversely, the Bloomberg article has what is in my opinion a good headline: "Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80"
Put another way - lets pretend that you awarded your employees bonuses October for whatever reason that were more than what the Christmas bonuses would have been, but told your employees that there would be no Christmas bonus this year due to Covid and this October bonus. In that hypothetical, if I had a headline that said "Goose Creek Businessman bought 7th car, owns speed boat, cut Christmas Bonuses for employees", would you say that is misleading? Even if every part of it was true?
In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
I guess I don't read it the same way you do. It's an article title written to encourage further reading.
After digging into it a little farther, Norway has shown that the deaths of at least 13 of the 23 are directly related to the side effects of being vaccinated. Norway has since changed their recommendations on vaccination of elderly people with complications. So again, it's a statement of fact, not written to be misleading or inflammatory.
There's a reason you are asked to tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth" when you sit on the stand.
Intentionally leaving things out turns a truthful statement misleading pretty dang fast.
In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :
Facts are just that. Sensationalism in the news is nothing new. If you don't assume they aren't telling the whole story and do your own research, then shame on you.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to AAZCD (Forum Supporter) :
I guess I don't read it the same way you do. It's an article title written to encourage further reading.
Would you be insulted if I told you that you are smarter than most people? It seems that you are.
A colleague pulled me aside today "Hey remember your poll about the vaccine? I am not going to get it."
"Oh, really? Why? What changed your mind?"
"If you want really good information on this, check out Americas Frontline Doctors...."
the rest was a blur.
In reply to tuna55 :
John, chapter 11, verse 35
Based on Bloomberg's immunization tracker, Israel, the UAE, Northern Ireland, and West Virginia will be where we find out how effective the vaccines are at reducing transmission as well as infection.
I speculate that this effect will be readily visible in every chart of positive tests and hospitalizations two weeks after 25% of the population receives their second dose. It will look like R just decreased by 25% if the vaccine is as effective at reducing transmission and infection. That's the difference between a slow climb at R=1.05 to R=0.8 which has infections cut in half every four weeks. Since it wasn't done in a one-day burst of immunizations it'll look smoother and the fall will start earlier rather than having a sudden inflection point.
How come we're all losing to West Virginia?
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
Define "losing".... I mean, we have better education, unemployment, jobs etc. 
In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :
This article explains it a bit. Some of it is they're the only state not relying on CVS and Walgreens and the pharmacy's they're using are already linked up with the nursing homes so things move faster with less issues, and by being a small state they have done flexiblity for dealing with problems that come up.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:How come we're all losing to West Virginia?
My guess is that West Virginia is generally pretty used to government based programs and have good infrastructure for that already. Lack of huge metro areas probably helps also.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
