Got my booster today

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by pickettt

What I’m trying to say is that a television MAIN purpose is to sell a product, service, or idea.

To answer your question, I have no doubt there are some people who wish they’d gotten it AS WELL AS people who wish they hadn’t. Your television will give you one side of that story, based on what’s for sale currently.

Unfortunately, when they decided not to regulate cable TV and leave it to the market things got increasingly worse.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by daveathall

The same as the internet, newspapers, hearsay, a scientist, a friend etc, etc. So where do you get your information that is guaranteed 100% to be accurate?

Anyone who claims to have 100% accurate information is a fool. The question isn’t about what you believe, but rather why you believe it.

[TheVTCGuy]

You know, one thing about all of this, and it is NOT a statement on the vaccine, is the media. I am so DISGUSTED with the media during this whole SJ$*show. I worked for Sony broadcast for 10 years so I have a little knowledge about the industry and although what I am saying is MHO, I believe it is completely true. Sensationalism SELLS media. Whether it is newspaper, television time, internet sites, SENSATIONALISM SELLS. Their entire broadcasting philosophy was to scream: “The Sky is falling.” Oh I am not claiming this pandemic was not a world-wide serious and dangerous event, of course it was, but every time I read/listened/watched news, it was nothing but dread and doom, and IMHO, it was “jacked up” (that’s an industry term by the way) to the absolute maximum to raise the public fear. I remember thinking: “If I watch any more of this the virus won’t have to kill me, I’ll just go hang myself.” I lost a lot of respect for the media.

As an example, a man in San Diego, elderly, was HIT BY A CAR and unfortunately, lost his life. When the took him to the hospital, they did a COVID test and he was positive. HE WAS LISTED AS A COVID DEATH, the media did a story about this elderly man lost his life to the virus. I couldn’t believe it. Another was a story out of Detroit, this mother lost both her children, in their early 20s, to COVID. A reporter researched and found out both her kids were SUPER OBESE, with diabetes and on oxygen! The regular flu probably would have (unfortunately) taken their lives. The media played this up, these young kids succumbing to a terrible virus…

Rant over, carry on.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

You know, one thing about all of this, and it is NOT a statement on the vaccine, is the media. I am so DISGUSTED with the media during this whole SJ$*show. I worked for Sony broadcast for 10 years so I have a little knowledge about the industry and although what I am saying is MHO, I believe it is completely true. Sensationalism SELLS media. Whether it is newspaper, television time, internet sites, SENSATIONALISM SELLS. Their entire broadcasting philosophy was to scream: “The Sky is falling.” Oh I am not claiming this pandemic was not a world-wide serious and dangerous event, of course it was, but every time I read/listened/watched news, it was nothing but dread and doom, and IMHO, it was “jacked up” (that’s an industry term by the way) to the absolute maximum to raise the public fear. I remember thinking: “If I watch any more of this the virus won’t have to kill me, I’ll just go hang myself.” I lost a lot of respect for the media.

Rant over, carry on.

News Media when you had the BIG Three decades ago used to be a money losing proposition. That's when you had more reporters and less commentators. Then again very few journalists were considered entertainers and didn't have the side gigs or strictly entertaining side jobs they have now. Serious and reporting were often used together.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I am so DISGUSTED with the media during this whole SJ$*show.

CNN said two days ago the first variant discovered in South Africa was Beta .Not true.It was Delta .

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

Dang, 34 with a beer belly? That is not your typical American. Speak for yourself !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The average adult male in the US has a BMI of 26.6.

The average IQ is around 100. Interacting with you one can infer exceptions are out there on both metrics.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

CNN said two days ago the first variant discovered in South Africa was Beta .Not true.It was Delta .

They always were about two steps behind reality

[woodsworth]

Originally Posted by GB-man

The average adult male in the US has a BMI of 26.6.

The average IQ is around 100. Interacting with you one can infer exceptions are out there on both metrics.

Oof

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by GB-man

The average adult male in the US has a BMI of 26.6.

The average IQ is around 100. Interacting with you one can infer exceptions are out there on both metrics.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by dddrees

News Media when you had the BIG Three decades ago used to be a money losing proposition. That's when you had more reporters and less commentators. Then again very few journalists were considered entertainers and didn't have the side gigs or strictly entertaining side jobs they have now. Serious and reporting were often used together.

I hear you loud and clear Paul. About a year ago, I stopped watching/listening to the news for this reason and many others. Most of it now is not news, but more so biased opinions. Do yourself a favor , for your sanity and overall health, turn off the news. It's very liberating....

Sorry Dan, I was quoting Paul. Somehow your response was quoted, but I totally agree with yours also.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Most of it now is not news, but more so biased opinions.

Very true .

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Anyone who claims to have 100% accurate information is a fool. The question isn’t about what you believe, but rather why you believe it.

I agree.

My point was, that no matter who you listen to, whether that be your father, a friend, a scientist, it is slanted one way. I chose the TV on that occasion to illustrate my point.

I had prostate cancer, there were two courses I could have taken, one was radiology, the other was an operation to remove my prostate. The specialist was singing the praises of the operation, I was assigned a specialist nurse and I said to her, "it seems like the specialist is in favour of the operation," She answered, "he would, he's the surgeon who will do the operation, if you talked to a radiologist, they would slant you their way.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I agree.

My point was, that no matter who you listen to, whether that be your father, a friend, a scientist, it is slanted one way. I chose the TV on that occasion to illustrate my point.

I had prostate cancer, there were two courses I could have taken, one was radiology, the other was an operation to remove my prostate. The specialist was singing the praises of the operation, I was assigned a specialist nurse and I said to her, "it seems like the specialist is in favour of the operation," She answered, "he would, he's the surgeon who will do the operation, if you talked to a radiologist, they would slant you their way.

There’s a saying in our line of work…”Surgeons want to cut.”

[OYptL]

Originally Posted by dddrees

I would imagine since the booster is a lower dose than the first two shots the side effects would generally be less, mine were as well.

Yes. My exception was the jab that I honestly didn’t feel( Pharmacist said it was a 25 needle) but the arm soreness was twice as bad as jabs 1&2 but 20 hours later. All 3 Moderna.

[OYptL]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

They always were about two steps behind reality

Never behind reality.

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by GB-man

The average adult male in the US has a BMI of 26.6.

The average IQ is around 100. Interacting with you one can infer exceptions are out there on both metrics.

That’s great. I’m just glad that you’ve decided to become health conscious this year and get your covid vaccine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by woodsworth

Oof

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ferdelious]

I've contemplated getting the booster but still on the fence. My Dr recommended it when I saw him last month. I'm 41 and in decent shape. I had COVID last December with about 8 days of symptoms but nothing serious. I had both shots of the Pfizer vaccine in May, so it's been 6 months. The main reason for getting the vaccine was for my father in law who is immunocompromised after a bone marrow transplant.

I do feel like I've had issues with heart rate lately when running so that's giving me some concern as well.

[BNA/LION]

I boosted Up last Monday and it was no big deal at all. ZERO reactions! -- J&J with a Moderna Boost!

The booster shot is 1/2 the dose of one of the regular shots. Let's just hope this keeps us from getting or giving others the "Vid"!

IBTL

[rlj676]

Originally Posted by Bro Watch

I know a couple that is having heart issues to this day from the shot. The one guy has had 2 operations already and is still on medication to keep his heart beating normal.
I just heard of another guy that went and got tested for antibodies, he had none and he had 2 shots already.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by daveathall

I'm with this.

I am more afraid of covid than I am of the vaccine, so I have had all jabs, booster and the flu jab.

I have seen people on the tv and read about them dying of covid and asking for the vaccine, but too late, I've heard them and their relatives say, "I wish I/they had taken the vaccine." I have never seen someone on the tv dying of the vaccine saying, "I wish I had never had the vaccine."

There are lots of arguments on this, I just think that there is less risk of me dying of the vaccine than of covid.

Seems here is an example out of a very small sample size.

A quick bing search brings up a ton of stories the media ignores. Anyone who raises the issues is ostracized… wonder what that feels like.

https://rupreparing.com/news/2021/11...vid-19-vaccine

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by rlj676

Seems here is an example out of a very small sample size.

A quick bing search brings up a ton of stories the media ignores. Anyone who raises the issues is ostracized… wonder what that feels like.

https://rupreparing.com/news/2021/11...vid-19-vaccine

My argument was very simple and not controversial, I stated my position. If you think there are more vaccine deaths than covid deaths I would appreciate credible links, not a sample size.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

That’s great. I’m just glad that you’ve decided to become health conscious this year and get your covid vaccine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was merely providing my experience with the vaccine and also getting covid. I never claimed to be particularly healthy in fact I made that very clear because I think it’s relevant to the conversation. I need to do better with diet as do many Americans.

I took my own personal health as well as the health of some immediate family members and used that alongside the data available to make my decision to get vaccinated. I don’t base such decisions on unsubstantiated theories.

Also those other people were laughing at you not with you in case that went right over the top.

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by GB-man

I was merely providing my experience with the vaccine and also getting covid. I never claimed to be particularly healthy in fact I made that very clear because I think it’s relevant to the conversation. I need to do better with diet as do many Americans.

I took my own personal health as well as the health of some immediate family members and used that alongside the data available to make my decision to get vaccinated. I don’t base such decisions on unsubstantiated theories.

Also those other people were laughing at you not with you in case that went right over the top.

That’s great. It did not go over my head.

Also, BMI is a terrible measure of obesity, I didn’t correct you on your last post because I wasn’t looking to continue the dialogue, but you may now continue your monologue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rlj676]

Originally Posted by daveathall

My argument was very simple and not controversial, I stated my position. If you think there are more vaccine deaths than covid deaths I would appreciate credible links, not a sample size.

You said you saw nobody regretted getting vaccine vs the dubious stories of dying people saying they wish they had. There are many stories of people with serious injuries, VAERS says hundreds of thousands who are likely to regret it. Nobody has said the vaccine has killed more than Covid.

The complaint is the media and cdc have made everything opaque. Every death with Covid is a “Covid death” even if they died on a motorcycle. There is no evaluation of comorbidities and age in the fear inducing headlines. The data I’ve seen clearly indicates the average age of death from Covid is aligned with the average age of death in general. Likewise the very overweight and people with other illness like diabetes are high risk. On the other hand vaccine deaths are spread and seem to be just as likely for healthy young people, like professional soccer players. So this one size fits all approach to something with an extremely varying risk profile doesn’t work, and hasn’t worked. If it did why do we have more deaths and higher rates now with vaccines then last year?

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

That’s great. It did not go over my head.

Also, BMI is a terrible measure of obesity, I didn’t correct you on your last post because I wasn’t looking to continue the dialogue, but you may now continue your monologue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You quoted me.

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I agree.

My point was, that no matter who you listen to, whether that be your father, a friend, a scientist, it is slanted one way. I chose the TV on that occasion to illustrate my point.

I had prostate cancer, there were two courses I could have taken, one was radiology, the other was an operation to remove my prostate. The specialist was singing the praises of the operation, I was assigned a specialist nurse and I said to her, "it seems like the specialist is in favour of the operation," She answered, "he would, he's the surgeon who will do the operation, if you talked to a radiologist, they would slant you their way.

Dave this brings to mind something off topic from the original post, but on topic in a way. An intracranial aneurysm is a problem with a blood vessel supplying the brain, where a bulbous outpouching forms, typically where a vessel branches. When these rupture, the results can be fatal. The treatment is to stop blood from flowing into these outpouchings by blocking them off.

When I was in training, the standard of care was a neurosurgeon opening up the skull, gently pushing the brain to the side, and applying a metal clip or clips across the neck of the aneurysm, allowing it to clot off when blood didn't flow into it any more. Then some radiologists decided to instead take tiny platinum filaments and insert them into the aneurysm from within the blood vessel. These were delivered through the groin via a catheter where the tip is positioned in the aneurysm. It was filled with these metal coils, and ideally clotted off.

When we would discuss the options with the patients, there was tension between the surgeon and radiologist. The solution was that, side by side, they each presented the benefits of the surgery the other doc would perform. The big open surgery was time tested over many years and a proven success, but carried more risk due to the open surgery and moving around of the brain. There is virtually always some tissue damage that we see on subsequent imaging. The metal coils had the benefit of being minimally invasive, but obviously we didn't know the long term outcomes in big patient populations. At the time, some aneurysms were better treated with the clips, others with the coils, while the rest were all guesswork. The patient got to decide after hearing the options.

Now that we have more years under our belts, aneurysms are almost exclusively treated with the minimally invasive method, and there are all sorts of different shaped devices that can be inserted to occlude (completely cure) the aneurysm.

I do think that's where we are heading with new vaccine technology. I understand the emotional reasons patients can be hesitant, even though I personally think it's foolish. I'm hoping that with time, and experience, vaccine tech will continue to advance and will become more generally accepted than it is currently. Meanwhile, I'm just looking at scan after scan of misery and loss, much of which could have been prevented.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Ferdelious

I've contemplated getting the booster but still on the fence. My Dr recommended it when I saw him last month. I'm 41 and in decent shape. I had COVID last December with about 8 days of symptoms but nothing serious. I had both shots of the Pfizer vaccine in May, so it's been 6 months. The main reason for getting the vaccine was for my father in law who is immunocompromised after a bone marrow transplant.

I do feel like I've had issues with heart rate lately when running so that's giving me some concern as well.

I find it interesting that the boosters supposedly use the same formula as the initial but that the initial are now now supposedly ineffective because of mutations. If that was the case, how does the same formula now protect against mutated strains as claimed. The only answer is that the antibody levels don't persist with shots and persistent boosters are needed. Not that the formula needed reworked because of mutations. The scientific process used by the talking heads is pretty embarrassing. Also what I don't understand is how other shots that were not "approved" outside of EUA are now approved for booster use when there is an option that was apparently approved. How does the change in dosage size, change the fundamental principals. And how can the talking heads say they have not fully considered natural immunities/antibodies. That is admitting to being uneducated on a subject where one is portrayed as an expert. Or being purposely deceitful.

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

CNN said two days ago the first variant discovered in South Africa was Beta .Not true.It was Delta .

That was another lie by the media. Another currently. Botswana is claiming that the first 4 observed cases were in fully vaccinated diplomats that came into their country. Those diplomats were apparently sent back to their countries. Shameful framing by the media. I imagine it has to do with South Africa the day prior to the "discovery" publicly announcing on 11/25 that they would withdraw new shot purchases. Seems like someone is trying to shame them for their decision. All focus has unjustly been on the nation of South Africa.

https://briefly.co.za/south-africa/1...e-a-stockpile/

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa...ow-2021-11-24/

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

You know, one thing about all of this, and it is NOT a statement on the vaccine, is the media. I am so DISGUSTED with the media during this whole SJ$*show. I worked for Sony broadcast for 10 years so I have a little knowledge about the industry and although what I am saying is MHO, I believe it is completely true. Sensationalism SELLS media. Whether it is newspaper, television time, internet sites, SENSATIONALISM SELLS. Their entire broadcasting philosophy was to scream: “The Sky is falling.” Oh I am not claiming this pandemic was not a world-wide serious and dangerous event, of course it was, but every time I read/listened/watched news, it was nothing but dread and doom, and IMHO, it was “jacked up” (that’s an industry term by the way) to the absolute maximum to raise the public fear. I remember thinking: “If I watch any more of this the virus won’t have to kill me, I’ll just go hang myself.” I lost a lot of respect for the media.

As an example, a man in San Diego, elderly, was HIT BY A CAR and unfortunately, lost his life. When the took him to the hospital, they did a COVID test and he was positive. HE WAS LISTED AS A COVID DEATH, the media did a story about this elderly man lost his life to the virus. I couldn’t believe it. Another was a story out of Detroit, this mother lost both her children, in their early 20s, to COVID. A reporter researched and found out both her kids were SUPER OBESE, with diabetes and on oxygen! The regular flu probably would have (unfortunately) taken their lives. The media played this up, these young kids succumbing to a terrible virus…

Rant over, carry on.

Agreed media is shameful. They care more about who is funding their sister company movie studios productions than reporting accurately. Opinion writers are constantly portrayed as journalists hiding their biases (on all sides). The FCC has allowed too many mergers, so that there are no longer enough competitors to keep checks and balances. We all have to try our best not to take the division bait and to understand differing viewpoints. It would be nice if the media lead by example for once.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by daveathall

My argument was very simple and not controversial, I stated my position. If you think there are more vaccine deaths than covid deaths I would appreciate credible links, not a sample size.

While unlikely that it is more, I think that is impossible for us to ever know with certainty due to the way the data reporting is structured (and prior PCR cycle threshold differences i.e. 28 vs 40). What I mean by that is that one is considered "unvaccinated" for the first 14 days after for reporting purposes. So there are really 3 data categories that should be reported and not two: 1. No Treatment, 2. Treatment within first 14 days (which should be separate study from number 1 here), and 3. Fully Treated. Probably a 4th and 5th study group that should be considered now too i.e. booster or not and if so within 14 days or not. You can make similar cases to treat each unique formula combination as its own data set as well. Also notice that most data reported is not apples to apples i.e. not same time periods. And that is for all sides. This is what happens when journalists decide they want to "play" mathematician. I doubt even basic regression models are understood by most talking heads.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by uscmatt99

Dave this brings to mind something off topic from the original post, but on topic in a way. An intracranial aneurysm is a problem with a blood vessel supplying the brain, where a bulbous outpouching forms, typically where a vessel branches. When these rupture, the results can be fatal. The treatment is to stop blood from flowing into these outpouchings by blocking them off.

When I was in training, the standard of care was a neurosurgeon opening up the skull, gently pushing the brain to the side, and applying a metal clip or clips across the neck of the aneurysm, allowing it to clot off when blood didn't flow into it any more. Then some radiologists decided to instead take tiny platinum filaments and insert them into the aneurysm from within the blood vessel. These were delivered through the groin via a catheter where the tip is positioned in the aneurysm. It was filled with these metal coils, and ideally clotted off.

When we would discuss the options with the patients, there was tension between the surgeon and radiologist. The solution was that, side by side, they each presented the benefits of the surgery the other doc would perform. The big open surgery was time tested over many years and a proven success, but carried more risk due to the open surgery and moving around of the brain. There is virtually always some tissue damage that we see on subsequent imaging. The metal coils had the benefit of being minimally invasive, but obviously we didn't know the long term outcomes in big patient populations. At the time, some aneurysms were better treated with the clips, others with the coils, while the rest were all guesswork. The patient got to decide after hearing the options.

Now that we have more years under our belts, aneurysms are almost exclusively treated with the minimally invasive method, and there are all sorts of different shaped devices that can be inserted to occlude (completely cure) the aneurysm.

I do think that's where we are heading with new vaccine technology. I understand the emotional reasons patients can be hesitant, even though I personally think it's foolish. I'm hoping that with time, and experience, vaccine tech will continue to advance and will become more generally accepted than it is currently. Meanwhile, I'm just looking at scan after scan of misery and loss, much of which could have been prevented.

Matt, thank you, just to finish the story and sorry to be off topic.

The decision was left to me, I asked the nurse who was assigned to guide me through the whole process, and said, if it was your husband, what would you advise? She said "Dave, I am not allowed to do that, what I will say is this, if you have surgery and it doesn't work, you can get Radiology afterwards, if you get Radiology and it doesn't work, you cant get surgery afterwards." I got surgery and needed radiology a year later.

This was 15 years ago and I know the procedures have come along in leaps and bounds. What did amaze me was I had a problem with my PSA results the other week, that nurse, from 15 years ago rang me to discuss it. Thats just amazing, she is fabulous. As are all of the medical profession.