Will you get vaccinated?

[mtpockets]

CLEVELAND, Ohio (WOIO) - WalMart is not requiring its employees it get vaccinated. But it is encouraging all associates to get vaccinated — and offering those that do $75.

“Do it for your health, your family, your friends, your community, and your country,” the company wrote in a memo to field associates.

The company extended the offer to WalMart, Sam’s Club, and Supply Chain employees below the level of facility manager.

To collect the $75, employees will have to prove they’ve been vaccinated. Starting May 18, the $75 will be added to vaccinated employees’ paychecks.

And those associated who are vaccinated will not have to wear masks at work starting on May 18.

[OldFartTom]

... And those associated who are vaccinated will not have to wear masks at work starting on May 18.

Sounds illogical, I'm not sure it works that way?? Masks in a non medical setting are to try to stop the mask wearer spreading COVID.

Vaccination does reduce the transmission, a bit... but not that much! (Especially not "Indian" B.1.617.2 variant after AZ vaccination, initial data suggests). Obviously vaccination will effects prevent serious disease in the vaccinated population, but a disappointing impact in preventing the transmission, which makes mask wearing based on vaccination status not

[mtpockets]

Sounds illogical, I'm not sure it works that way?? Masks in a non medical setting are to try to stop the mask wearer spreading COVID.

Vaccination does reduce the transmission, a bit... but not that much! (Especially not "Indian" B.1.617.2 variant after AZ vaccination, initial data suggests). Obviously vaccination will effects prevent serious disease in the vaccinated population, but a disappointing impact in preventing the transmission, which makes mask wearing based on vaccination status not

It's not just Walmart, it's many stores and organizations. They are just following the latest CDC guidelines

[JustTheDad]

This is the second times I had an inconclusive Covid test at my job. I had to wait over an hour to get clear. These bastards think I am going to take their experimental vaccine.
Keep making it difficult for me

The vaccines aren't experimental, and I'm happy to answer any I can about the vaccines or why I say that, but whatever you choose to do, that testing schedule is bothersome, even if it's better than it was.
Sorry for you having to put up with it. I suppose the best part is that you know you have a pretty low risk of catching the virus from a co-worker.

[mgftp]

The vaccines aren't experimental, and I'm happy to answer any I can about the vaccines or why I say that, but whatever you choose to do, that testing schedule is bothersome, even if it's better than it was.
Sorry for you having to put up with it. I suppose the best part is that you know you have a pretty low risk of catching the virus from a co-worker.

Don't enter the rest of these forums with that attitude, or you will have another full time job on your hands.

The amount of time I've seen a miscer refer to the Covid vaccines as experimental, rushed, ineffective, etc.... God I hope this place isn't a reflection of the general population.

[OldFartTom]

An estimate of the number of vaccine shots given are 1.48 billion (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/) if anyone is adamant that it's still early experimental, I'd suggest "Don't cast your pearls before swine" or something like that anyway

[supramax]

... God I hope this place isn't a reflection of the general population.

It's a minority of the general population. The forum gives them a soapbox to stand on, that's all.

[Paul Kreul]

In the beginning it was every single day, which was very annoying. Then it became every three days. Now it's once a week.

But obviously they told us if you get vaccinated you don't need to be tested

Can you do the saliva test rather than the q-tip probe? Fuk that test

[Paul Kreul]

An estimate of the number of vaccine shots given are 1.48 billion (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/) if anyone is adamant that it's still early experimental, I'd suggest "Don't cast your pearls before swine" or something like that anyway

Normal approval process is 3-5 years of animal trials, followed by 3-5 years of human trials. Every previous mRNa "vaccine" candidate was withdrawn before or during animal trials due to lack of efficacy combined with serious safety concerns. Commercial use of a mRNA "vaccine" in chickens resulted in almost 100% mortality within a few months due to antibody depebdent enhancement.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...irus-dangerous

[LWW]

I built my own custom bike called “Sho Kosugi” it’s a diamondback (green) with a shop vac engine, I installed plastic cards to enhance the loudness, scares the chit out of the neighborhood!

[x-trainer ben]

Guess who's back, back again......

[Paul Kreul]

Guess who's back, back again......

Only you would post an Eminem video. Just LMAO. I knew you’d be that guy

[Gabbar99]

I'm happy to answer any I can about the vaccines

Sure, discuss facts and reason with anti-vaxxers, that might work. I mean there's always a first time.

[MinisterOfLust]

Can you do the saliva test rather than the q-tip probe? Fuk that test

One time this lady pushed that q-tip all the way inside my nose and I started to cry.

Wish I had a choice though

[x-trainer ben]

Only you would post an Eminem video. Just LMAO. I knew you’d be that guy

It is the only song that i know with the lyrics "guess who is back, back again"

If you can offer me some safe cdc approved alternatives, that are not experimental and are safe, i will gladly post them.
We wouldn't want a bad reaction to them.

[mtpockets]

Two trailer park girls go round the outside,
Round the outside, round the outside..
Two trailer park girls go round the outside,
Round the outside, round the outside..

[7Seconds]

Only you would post an Eminem video. Just LMAO. I knew you’d be that guy

How about “Without Me” in Klingon? To be fair this isn't actually a translation of "Without Me" into Klingon. It's an entirely original song about Klingon warriors made to the beat and rhythm of Eminem's song.

[LWW]

Sure, discuss facts and reason with anti-vaxxers, that might work. I mean there's always a first time.

Kinda like discussing with you about putting a mask on an exerted runner might not be good........

[JustTheDad]

Normal approval process is 3-5 years of animal trials, followed by 3-5 years of human trials. Every previous mRNa "vaccine" candidate was withdrawn before or during animal trials due to lack of efficacy combined with serious safety concerns. Commercial use of a mRNA "vaccine" in chickens resulted in almost 100% mortality within a few months due to antibody depebdent enhancement.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...irus-dangerous

It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.

[TryingBB]

It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.

I’m no scientist and dunno for sure if what you said 100% true.

I do want to add that this is legit the best explanation I’ve ever heard and makes 1000% sense to me and if I had to bet on it I’d bet with 80% surety that this is absolute truth.

Everyone is saying everything. Time to close your ears and eyes and ignore all the ignorant BS - listen to scientist and doctors and do accordingly.

[Gabbar99]

Kinda like discussing with you about putting a mask on an exerted runner might not be good........

We did not have a discussion. I only posted a video from years ago showing many runners without masks collapsing at the finish. Something that I as a track and cross-country fan have seen many times.

I find you completely incoherent. I have no idea how others engage with you, much less why. I guess they find it amusing to watch the jester dance.

In my only exchange with you, you claimed that the world's most prestigious academic journal was no good because they use a .com rather than a .edu domain. That was enough for me to move on.

[Plateauplower]

It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.

You a reaching a bit in the bolded text. Transcription errors in replication are what drive mutations. There is just as likely of a chance of this to happen in an infectious vaccinated person as an unvaccinated person, and it has been happening since the beginning. What if the unvaccinated person has post infection immunity vs a vaccinated person who had not been infected? Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has zero effect on virulence of viral progeny or whether transcription errors / mutations will occur. Viruses typically become less virulent over time, since natural selection favors the virus that doesn’t kill the host, at least to some extent (probably not much difference considering the CFR of Covid.).

[Reliance012]

Normal approval process is 3-5 years of animal trials, followed by 3-5 years of human trials. Every previous mRNa "vaccine" candidate was withdrawn before or during animal trials due to lack of efficacy combined with serious safety concerns. Commercial use of a mRNA "vaccine" in chickens resulted in almost 100% mortality within a few months due to antibody depebdent enhancement.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...irus-dangerous

You’ve got to stop quoting things you don’t understand. A friend of mine is an author on that paper, and I’m incredibly familiar with it because I’ve cited it numerous times in my own work.

The oncogenic herpes virus Andrew Read works with is incredibly virulent already, and it evolved to more virulent because vaccination lifted the cost of aggressive viral replication by reducing and prolonging host mortality while simultaneously permitting onward transmission. In other words, it was a leaky (anti disease) vaccine. The unvaccinated birds died at the highest rates.

[Reliance012]

You a reaching a bit in the bolded text. Transcription errors in replication is what drives mutations. There is just as likely of a chance of this to happen in an infectious vaccinated person as an unvaccinated person, and it has been happening since the beginning. Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has zero effect on virulence of viral progeny or even whether a transcription error / mutation will occur. Viruses typically become less virulent over time, since natural selection favors the virus that doesn’t kill the host, at least to some extent (probably not much difference considering the CFR of Covid.).

Not true. Mutations are random but subsequent evolution is not. The power of natural selection to change gene frequencies is a direct function of population size. Other than the very few exceptions (ex: anti toxin vaccines) pathogens will have considerably less reproductive success in a vaccinated host. That’s the entire point of the protective effects of vaccines — to minimize pathogen density, tissue tropism and exploitation of host tissues.

To the point about virulence, yes most novel pathogens evolve to be more benign because they refine exploitation of the host. Few pathogens are regularly transmitted after death, so host mortality is costly to pathogen fitness. But there are benefits to virulence as well, and whether a given pathogen will evolve to be more or less virulent depends on many factors (host density, transmission mode, etc).

[Plateauplower]

Not true. Mutations are random but subsequent evolution is not. The power of natural selection to change gene frequencies is a direct function of population size. Other than the very few exceptions (ex: anti toxin vaccines) pathogens will have considerably less reproductive success in a vaccinated host. That’s the entire point of the protective effects of vaccines — to minimize pathogen density, tissue tropism and exploitation of host tissues.

To the point about virulence, yes most novel pathogens evolve to be more benign because they refine exploitation of the host. Few pathogens are regularly transmitted after death, so host mortality is costly to pathogen fitness. But there are benefits to virulence as well, and whether a given pathogen will evolve to be more or less virulent depends on many factors (host density, transmission mode, etc).

A lot of it is nothing more than a matter of chance. Just like when a mutated strain of a virus makes the jump to a new species that was previously not a suitable host. The progeny of that virus are likely to express the same trait as the initial mutated strain and poof we have a “novel” virus (in humans)

If someone can test positive, after having been vaccinated, replication is going on in that person. To suggest vaccination is superior to post infection immunity for covid is absurd. There have been so few cases of confirmed re-infection that those cases are likely false positive tests for one of the confirmed cases. Vaccination is going to provide better chances for a successful outcome vs an unvaccinated person who was not previously infected. It pretty much ends there.

[Reliance012]

A lot of it is nothing more than a matter of chance. Just like when a mutated strain of a virus makes the jump to a new species that was previously not a suitable host. The progeny of that virus are likely to express the same trait as the initial mutated strain and poof we have a “novel” virus (in humans)

If someone can test positive, after having been vaccinated, replication is going on in that person. To suggest suggest vaccination is superior to post infection immunity for covid is absurd.

The number of mutations in a population is a function of population size. The total population of SARSCOV2 in a vaccinated host will be less than a vaccinated host. That is unequivocally true. So no, the odds are not the same. Unvaccinated hosts contribute disproportionately more to the genetic variation and evolution of SARSCOV2.

It’s not about if an individual can test positive. It’s about averages. And on average, vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to be infected and test positive. Also, testing positive doesn’t tell you about viral density. Two positive hosts can have substantially different densities of the virus.

[Paul Kreul]

It is the only song that i know with the lyrics "guess who is back, back again"

If you can offer me some safe cdc approved alternatives, that are not experimental and are safe, i will gladly post them.
We wouldn't want a bad reaction to them.

Sure. A safer alternative to Eminem would be found here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PobrSpMwKk4

A safer alternative to the vaccine would be found here

https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance...iab255/6274562

And here

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...unity.amp.html

What’s your next question?

[Paul Kreul]

You’ve got to stop quoting things you don’t understand. A friend of mine is an author on that paper, and I’m incredibly familiar with it because I’ve cited it numerous times in my own work.

The oncogenic herpes virus Andrew Read works with is incredibly virulent already, and it evolved to more virulent because vaccination lifted the cost of aggressive viral replication by reducing and prolonging host mortality while simultaneously permitting onward transmission. In other words, it was a leaky (anti disease) vaccine. The unvaccinated birds died at the highest rates.

Actually this is precisely why vaccines have little to no chance of effectiveness for Corona type viruses. History has proven this true over and over. Corna vaccines are notoriously problematic ( mostly due to rapid weakening) and have never been successful.

“The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses”

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....03.21256520v1

They showed that after administration of the vaccine, the innate immune response to other immune system triggers like other viruses, bacteria and fungi was changed in complex ways. Evidence also showed that once the adaptive immune response to COVID “wears off” basically, it could make people more susceptible to more serious illness from COVID infection (not to mention other things) due to these innate immune system changes.

This “vaccine” is not safe, not in the slightest way, gettin real tired of you trying to push every single agenda there is. You’ve been in complete compliance since the beginning of this...it is absurd. Unlike yourself I learned from history that if the govt REALLY REALLY wants you to do something, it most likely not in your best interest. The vast majority of mouth breathers don't know jack **** about world history and honestly don't give a ****, it's tiktok time! How many generations before have sworn, "never to forget," from ****ed up situations in the past? 1 or 2 generations down the line, they don't even know what freedom is and are begging for governments to make their decisions for them.

[Plateauplower]

The number of mutations in a population is a function of population size. The total population of SARSCOV2 in a vaccinated host will be less than a vaccinated host. That is unequivocally true. So no, the odds are not the same. Unvaccinated hosts contribute disproportionately more to the genetic variation and evolution of SARSCOV2.

It’s not about if an individual can test positive. It’s about averages. And on average, vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to be infected and test positive. Also, testing positive doesn’t tell you about viral density. Two positive hosts can have substantially different densities of the virus.

Sure less vaccinated people infected, lower replication in infectious vaccinated people. There will still be transcription errors, it is a matter of chance if that mutation has any effect on the virus, or if it will make it better or worse for humans going forward. Looks like you quoted my post before I made an edit. Curious on your opinion of vaccination for people who had covid lol. I can kind of guess what it will be though...cause science.

[Paul Kreul]

It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.

Um.. the paper is about viral shedding..you do understand that..right?

“But the vaccinated chickens were transmitting the virus, shedding 10,000 times more virus than an unvaccinated bird.”

“Previously, a hot strain was so nasty, it wiped itself out. Now, you keep its host alive with a vaccine, then it can transmit and spread in the world,” Read said. “So it’s got an evolutionary future, which it didn’t have before.”

But does this evolutionary future breed more dangerous viruses?“

This is EXACTLY what is happening now. This is why we see the most vaccinated areas with the highest amount of new mutations.