You put a generic statement in my mouth that "the mRNA vaccines don't reduce the risk of Covid 19". But that is not what I said - they do, for the old and vulnerable people who get the shots. But the risk/reward ratio for children and young healthy people, especially young, healthy men, is questionable at best, and forcing these people to get shots does not reduce the risk for vulnerable people, when the vulnerable people already have the choice to protect themselves. The vaccines are about protecting oneself, not about protecting others. I understand that you struggle to grasp that concept, but it is true. If you think you should get a shot every year, you can. If you do so, clearly, you believe that it protects you. So you are already protected. Forcing others to also get (additional) shots when you are already presumably protected, and when vaccinated people both catch it and transmit it - does nothing, or at least not enough to justify forcing them to do so, especially when anyone who wants to can already protect themselves.
I said that using those mRNA would reduce the threat of Covid-19. If you agree with me, why was your next post the one that said "so ignorant"?
You said that using them on children (and as I understand it, you would like to see that mandated?) would reduce the threat of Covid. That is incorrect. Children aren't the ones threatened by it (unless they are vulnerable for specific reasons, like obesity). And as I explained, vulnerable people do not get additional benefit if they protect themselves from non-vulnerable people being forced to get vaccinated. But not surprising. Teachers unions have had an anti-children and anti-parents agenda for a while.
Impact on transmission rates is not insignificant. The more vaccinated the population is, the more likely there will be population-level immunity as a result, even if on an individual basis the protection against spreading the virus wanes after the first few months. But leaving that aside, this reduces the threat to vulnerable children who may not otherwise get vaccinated without it being mandatory by the school. That said, if a parent really doesn't want their kid to receive a COVID vaccine, I think they should be allowed to opt out.
I said nothing about mandating them. I said that kids getting the shots would reduce the threat. Kids that have the shots will be less likely to face serious consequences from Covid-19. I understand that many kids don't have the harsher effects, but some do. That isn't anything new. Kids who get the shots will have an increase in t-lymphocytes and b-lymphocytes You clearly don't understand the agenda of Teachers unions which have different agendas depending on where they are. Bottom line on Teachers unions is this. They look after the interest of educators. Educators deserve to have a say in protecting their interests as they provide a valuable service to our society. Those interests most often align with the interests of students and parents. Occasionally, certain parents may have outlier interests which don't. I.E. parents that don't want their students taught the science of evolution might be outside unions pushing for setting standards that their teachers teach science at a rigorous level to help the students learn.
Not at the federal level. I don't have a problem if independent school districts decide their students should.
It all depends on what is defined as being "threatened by it". Given the potential for neurological impact, a Covid vaccine may offer protection against the long term effects of the infection. There is clear evidence that even mild infections in Children may have long term consequences. That said it's unknown to what extent or how severe they are, and yes, to what extent being vaccinated protects against that. But I also think that it's too early to say that Children aren't threatened by it.
In children as well as in adults the mRNA helps the body produce T-lymphocytes and B-lymphocytes. Therefore it helps reduce the threat of Covid-19.
For children without pre-existing conditions, Covid is not mire dangerous than the flu and RSV. Stop talking as if you even remotely understand the science.
The flu is also less of a threat when there is a vaccine. You wouldn't even answer the questions about science.
Honest question about this tweet and some of the other folks you tweet. I looked at his tweets and overall he says a lot of common sense stuff then claims it puts him at odds with the medical establishment. But to me, it's exactly what the medical establishment is saying. He says it's not fats but processed foods and sugar that are causing all these diseases for instance, and that's a strong emphasis of education for the CDC, to cut down consumption of saturated fats, processed foods, sugar, and sodium. In the tweet above, the "medical establishment" totally agrees with that statement. You're a smart guy, you read up on these topics clearly - so my question is, why post some of these guys from twitter that are misrepresenting the other side in what seems (to me at least) to be an effort to build their own influence?
How do you think this tweet was misrepresenting the other side, and who is the other side? I don't know the tweeter and I think that's the only tweet I have ever seen from him, it just came up in my feed. What I do know is that there are doctors in the medical establishment who refused to treat unvaccinated people or who ridiculed and attacked them. So that tweet is true.
