Mandatory vaccination

[coffeebean]

On 2/20/2021 at 6:51 AM, deliver42 said:

Viking Cruise Lines has started no vaccine, no cruise on all it's lines. River, ocean, and yacht. You must be at least 14 days after the final shot. There are NO exceptions. Masks will continue to be mandated also.

Wonder why the mandate for masks if everyone on board is vaccinated? I have been a huge proponent for masking and social distancing since the beginning of this pandemic and still continue to do so. BUT.....being on a ships where everyone is vaccinated seems to be over kill at this point to mandate masking. I will not cruise if I have to wear a mask while on board. Just my opinion, of course.

[coffeebean]

15 hours ago, zdcatc12 said:

I am in the Pfizer trial, that is basically what it was. You went out and did your normal everyday things and hopefully more of the placebos will actually catch the virus than the ones that get the real vaccine.

Thank you for volunteering to be in the vaccine trial. You are my hero.

 

Just wondering, when you say you went out and did your normal everyday things, did you continue to follow CDC guidelines such as wearing a mask and social distancing? Just wondering if the efficacy of these mRNA vaccines would be nearly as high in real life without all the precautions. What I'm trying to say is, did the manufacturers sort of not reach true efficacies if those people in the trials wore masks and social distanced in public?

[Stick93]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Thank you for volunteering to be in the vaccine trial. You are my hero.

 

Just wondering, when you say you went out and did your normal everyday things, did you continue to follow CDC guidelines such as wearing a mask and social distancing? Just wondering if the efficacy of these mRNA vaccines would be nearly as high in real life without all the precautions. What I'm trying to say is, did the manufacturers sort of not reach true efficacies if those people in the trials wore masks and social distanced in public?

I agree thanks for volunteering  - You are a true hero in these times 

 

Just a though...

If someone is part of a trial they could be receiving a placebo - 

Also do you believe the average volunteer for this would be given the information you are asking??

 

[coffeebean]

26 minutes ago, Stick93 said:

I agree thanks for volunteering  - You are a true hero in these times 

 

Just a though...

If someone is part of a trial they could be receiving a placebo - 

Also do you believe the average volunteer for this would be given the information you are asking??

 

Very true of double blinded studies that these trials are based on. So, I guess I can answer my own question about trial participants using precautions when going about their daily lives. But, having said that, the trial efficacy results do not really give us a good idea of what the efficacy would be if no precautions were used by the trial participants. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear but this is something I have pondered since the inception of the vaccine trials.

[macandlucy]

2 hours ago, hallux said:

Except, again, it has not yet been proven that the vaccine will prevent someone from carrying the virus and passing on to someone else.  In fact - some reports are that people carrying a certain vaccine (I think the Pfizer one is the one I heard about) actually CAN carry and pass on the virus.  This means that if they allow unvaccinated children to mix with vaccinated people they STILL run the risk of contracting the virus.

I haven't read that study, but I will if I find it.

 

I agree that there's going to be some risk, it's just a question of how much. I do think with everything we know and everything we have now, the risk is much lower. But people have to do what is best for them and their families.

 

The other thing I wonder about it the number of PCR cycles they ran during those tests. The WHO recently lowered the number of recommended cycles for covid tests. Were they just too sensitive? Or I wonder is this why case numbers are dropping? Or are we at the beginning stages of her immunity? 

[hallux]

21 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

The other thing I wonder about it the number of PCR cycles they ran during those tests. The WHO recently lowered the number of recommended cycles for covid tests. Were they just too sensitive?

I wonder if lowering the number of cycles reduces the positivity rate among cured patients while still allowing it to catch new active infections?  Someone that has had COVID and recovered can test positive for 3-5 months after recovery so I'm wondering if changing the test protocol would impact that.

[macandlucy]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Very true of double blinded studies that these trials are based on. So, I guess I can answer my own question about trial participants using precautions when going about their daily lives. But, having said that, the trial efficacy results do not really give us a good idea of what the efficacy would be if no precautions were used by the trial participants. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear but this is something I have pondered since the inception of the vaccine trials.

It's been a long time since I was in a statistics class, and even then I wasn't the best student, but IIRC randomization and sample size takes care of a lot of these problems. There are around 30,000 participants I think, so even with individual behaviors (masks, mask wearing, distancing, social contacts, etc.) in both arms of the study, the sheer size of the group takes care of that and allows the differences between the groups to be made plain.

 

In both arms, you'll have people who wear masks, don't wear them, wear good masks, wear bad masks, socialize, don't socialize, work outside the home, don't work outside the home, shake hands, hug people, don't...etc. But because people are randomly assigned to groups, and even the researchers don't know which group they are in so they can't influence the study subjects' behaviors, and because there are so many people in both the experimental and control groups (actual vaccine receivers and placebo receivers) it all comes out in the wash, so to speak,

 

[macandlucy]

3 minutes ago, hallux said:

I wonder if lowering the number of cycles reduces the positivity rate among cured patients while still allowing it to catch new active infections?  Someone that has had COVID and recovered can test positive for 3-5 months after recovery so I'm wondering if changing the test protocol would impact that.

Good question. I don't know enough about testing to comment really. I seem to remember Dr. Fauci talking about 35/40 cycles being too high. And then reading somewhere that if you run too many cycles, the "positive" you find isn't really a positive because, I think, of what Coffebean referred to: viral load. As I understand viral load (again, very far from complete understanding!) but as I understand it, some people could have the virus in their bodies, but for whatever reason it's not replicating enough to make them actually contagious to others. I could be wrong though.

[zdcatc12]

2 hours ago, coffeebean said:

Thank you for volunteering to be in the vaccine trial. You are my hero.

 

Just wondering, when you say you went out and did your normal everyday things, did you continue to follow CDC guidelines such as wearing a mask and social distancing? Just wondering if the efficacy of these mRNA vaccines would be nearly as high in real life without all the precautions. What I'm trying to say is, did the manufacturers sort of not reach true efficacies if those people in the trials wore masks and social distanced in public?

Yes, we followed the guidelines. The requirement was that we go out to the store, restaurant, etc. at least three times a week. 

 

2 hours ago, Stick93 said:

I agree thanks for volunteering  - You are a true hero in these times 

 

Just a though...

If someone is part of a trial they could be receiving a placebo - 

Also do you believe the average volunteer for this would be given the information you are asking??

 

I initially received the placebo. I was unblinded and received the actual vaccine last month. I never contracted the virus while on the placebo. The head of the trial at the clinic I was at, said that the trial is based on a higher number of placebo catching the virus in their everyday life than people who received the vaccine, hence the requirement to not stay locked up in your house while in the trial.

 

2 hours ago, coffeebean said:

Very true of double blinded studies that these trials are based on. So, I guess I can answer my own question about trial participants using precautions when going about their daily lives. But, having said that, the trial efficacy results do not really give us a good idea of what the efficacy would be if no precautions were used by the trial participants. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear but this is something I have pondered since the inception of the vaccine trials.

We didn't take any precautions other than what we would normally do, e.g. wear a mask, socially distance, etc.

 

20 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

It's been a long time since I was in a statistics class, and even then I wasn't the best student, but IIRC randomization and sample size takes care of a lot of these problems. There are around 30,000 participants I think, so even with individual behaviors (masks, mask wearing, distancing, social contacts, etc.) in both arms of the study, the sheer size of the group takes care of that and allows the differences between the groups to be made plain.

 

In both arms, you'll have people who wear masks, don't wear them, wear good masks, wear bad masks, socialize, don't socialize, work outside the home, don't work outside the home, shake hands, hug people, don't...etc. But because people are randomly assigned to groups, and even the researchers don't know which group they are in so they can't influence the study subjects' behaviors, and because there are so many people in both the experimental and control groups (actual vaccine receivers and placebo receivers) it all comes out in the wash, so to speak,

 

Yes, that is what we were told. The only person who knew which injection we received was the person who did the injection.

[macandlucy]

2 minutes ago, zdcatc12 said:

 

Yes, that is what we were told. The only person who knew which injection we received was the person who did the injection.

 

Hmm, I must say I am surprised by that. I would have expected no one the study participants were in contact with to know who was getting what -- would have expected the vials to be unmarked or masked in someway.

 

Did the vaccinator give you any instruction about behavior -- mask wearing, distancing etc. do you recall?

 

[zdcatc12]

21 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

 

Hmm, I must say I am surprised by that. I would have expected no one the study participants were in contact with to know who was getting what -- would have expected the vials to be unmarked or masked in someway.

 

Did the vaccinator give you any instruction about behavior -- mask wearing, distancing etc. do you recall?

 

When I went into the room, the syringe was covered. Before the injection, I had to look away until the syringe was put away after the shot. No, the vaccinator personally did not, but in the group meeting before our first injection, they told us to not take extra precautions or lessen up on what we had been doing, just keep going out into public like we had been doing.

[macandlucy]

18 minutes ago, zdcatc12 said:

When I went into the room, the syringe was covered. Before the injection, I had to look away until the syringe was put away after the shot. No, the vaccinator personally did not, but in the group meeting before our first injection, they told us to not take extra precautions or lessen up on what we had been doing, just keep going out into public like we had been doing.

Ah! Very good to know. Thank you :)

 

[zerooveride]

The one thing I haven't seen is a mention of insurance. If I was a betting man, I bet that the cruise lines liability insurance provider probably is going to require these precautions (mask, social distancing, vaccines, etc.) before they will sign off on coverage. 

 

 

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, macandlucy said:

It's been a long time since I was in a statistics class, and even then I wasn't the best student, but IIRC randomization and sample size takes care of a lot of these problems. There are around 30,000 participants I think, so even with individual behaviors (masks, mask wearing, distancing, social contacts, etc.) in both arms of the study, the sheer size of the group takes care of that and allows the differences between the groups to be made plain.

 

In both arms, you'll have people who wear masks, don't wear them, wear good masks, wear bad masks, socialize, don't socialize, work outside the home, don't work outside the home, shake hands, hug people, don't...etc. But because people are randomly assigned to groups, and even the researchers don't know which group they are in so they can't influence the study subjects' behaviors, and because there are so many people in both the experimental and control groups (actual vaccine receivers and placebo receivers) it all comes out in the wash, so to speak,

 

I guess I must be very naive to think that people will not shake hands, not hug people not living in their households, not hang out in crowds and do all those sort of things we all did pre-pandemic. Hopefully, as you said, the sheer size of the test groups account for those who do follow protocols and those who had risky behavior.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, zdcatc12 said:

Yes, we followed the guidelines. The requirement was that we go out to the store, restaurant, etc. at least three times a week. 

 

I initially received the placebo. I was unblinded and received the actual vaccine last month. I never contracted the virus while on the placebo. The head of the trial at the clinic I was at, said that the trial is based on a higher number of placebo catching the virus in their everyday life than people who received the vaccine, hence the requirement to not stay locked up in your house while in the trial.

 

We didn't take any precautions other than what we would normally do, e.g. wear a mask, socially distance, etc.

 

Yes, that is what we were told. The only person who knew which injection we received was the person who did the injection.

This is actually the first time I'm hearing about how the trials were conducted. It is good to hear that you, as a trial participant, were told you had to go out in the community at least three times per week and that you did continue to wear masks and social distance.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, zdcatc12 said:

When I went into the room, the syringe was covered. Before the injection, I had to look away until the syringe was put away after the shot. No, the vaccinator personally did not, but in the group meeting before our first injection, they told us to not take extra precautions or lessen up on what we had been doing, just keep going out into public like we had been doing.

Which vaccine trial did you participate in? Are you able to answer that question?

[coffeebean]

49 minutes ago, zerooveride said:

The one thing I haven't seen is a mention of insurance. If I was a betting man, I bet that the cruise lines liability insurance provider probably is going to require these precautions (mask, social distancing, vaccines, etc.) before they will sign off on coverage. 

 

 

Oh no. I surely hope not. I won't be cruising if masks will be mandated. I don't mind having to distance from others but the masking is not something I want to do on vacation.

[zerooveride]

13 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Oh no. I surely hope not. I won't be cruising if masks will be mandated. I don't mind having to distance from others but the masking is not something I want to do on vacation.

 

I know we want what we used to believe was "normal" but I don't know if we will ever go back to what we used to know. I know the term "new normal" is annoying but I think we are in a new chapter and will have to get used to this new nuisances. 

 

I hope I am wrong and we no longer need these things, but who knows what the future will hold. 

[Georgia_Peaches]

Guess that rules us out.  I have no intention of getting the "vaccine" and I fear for those who do.

[winterbliss]

Are folks starting to monitor the CDC VAERS? You can place your queries in such a way that it allows you to see a little synopsis of the event that has been reported.

 

The reports of serious side effects are too long so now I'm just zeroing in on those that are reporting deaths within a particular timeframe. And, yes, I'm aware of the criteria for VAERS.

 

 

 

 

[winterbliss]

2 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Guess that rules us out.  I have no intention of getting the "vaccine" and I fear for those who do.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I feel the same. 

[zdcatc12]

52 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

Which vaccine trial did you participate in? Are you able to answer that question?

Pfizer. It started in July.

[coffeebean]

3 hours ago, winterbliss said:

Are folks starting to monitor the CDC VAERS? You can place your queries in such a way that it allows you to see a little synopsis of the event that has been reported.

 

The reports of serious side effects are too long so now I'm just zeroing in on those that are reporting deaths within a particular timeframe. And, yes, I'm aware of the criteria for VAERS.

 

 

 

 

What are some of the serious side effects and are they a direct result of the mRNA vaccine?

[winterbliss]

3 hours ago, coffeebean said:

What are some of the serious side effects and are they a direct result of the mRNA vaccine?

This system contains unverified reports of adverse events. It does not state that action A resulted in B. Having said that, if you start to read through these reports..ie make sure you include the ID number...you need to read the summaries of as many of these reported events as possible. This is updated weekly.

I'm trying to read through as many reports of 'serious' events and also the reports of death within a short time frame following vaccine.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by winterbliss

[Stick93]

17 minutes ago, winterbliss said:

This system contains unverified reports of adverse events. It does not state that action A resulted in B. Having said that, if you start to read through these reports..ie make sure you include the ID number...you need to read the summaries of as many of these reported events as possible. This is updated weekly.

I'm trying to read through as many reports of 'serious' events and also the reports of death within a short time frame following vaccine.

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure the many death from covid should read possible as well. Seems like for the last year nobody has died from cancer, heart attacks' or strokes, let alone anything else - Lord, its frankly a miracle!

 

I think both side are hiding things and there is truth to everything heard. The vaccines are not as safe as they say. They may be 95/96/97/98/99% safe but some people have had serious side effect and the public should be informed to make a decision if they want to take that risk for the benefit that should come with the injection.

People also have died from other causes and have been lumped into Covid stats. The CDC has said so and this also should be better explained so that the general public is more knowledgeable in calculating their own  risk.

 

You can choose to believe anything you like. You can chose to take the vaccine or not - but nobody really knows what's going on - Just my opinion.