An interesting question about belief -- God and Vaccines

[dybmh]

@KenS, there have been 71 million vaccines administered: Source

Even if there have been 1000 adverse reactions, that's less than .002%.

That's not "many".

 

[Kenny]

This is using the same faulty source, the VAERS system.


This appears to be unrelated to the vaccine: Health officials investigating death of Miami physician shortly after getting Pfizer vaccine


Only 2 of these 13 died as a result of the vaccine.


You said there were many adverse reactions to the vaccine. It was exaggerating and spreading rumors.

"We don't know" isn't a great response to the problem

Calling something "a faulty source", doesn't make it faulty

"appears" - isn't a medical diagnosis.

not ignoring the multiplicity of death related and adverse reactions isn't "spreading rumors".

 

[Kenny]

@KenS, there have been 71 million vaccines administered: Source

Even if there have been 1000 adverse reactions, that's less than .002%.

That's not "many".

CDC: 94% of Covid-19 deaths had underlying medical conditions

So, if 6% is the real the death rate for the actual Covid because 94% had underlining problems...

6% of 1.7 death rate = .00102

So... "that's not many"?

 

[dybmh]

"We don't know" isn't a great response to the problem

The response is: people over 80 or who are terminally ill are at greater risk.

Calling something "a faulty source", doesn't make it faulty

Willful ignorance. The source is faulty because none of the reports coming from the VAERS database are confirmed to be vaccine related.

"appears" - isn't a medical diagnosis.

That discredits your own source. Apply that same skepticism fairly and youll see that your own sources are weak.

not ignoring the multiplicity of death related and adverse reactions isn't "spreading rumors".

... back-peddling noted

 

[dybmh]

CDC: 94% of Covid-19 deaths had underlying medical conditions

So, if 6% is the real the death rate for the actual Covid because 94% had underlining problems...

6% of 1.7 death rate = .00102

So... "that's not many"?

This article isn't about vaccine related deaths.

Ken, are you reading any of these articles before posting them?

 

[Kenny]

This article isn't about vaccine related deaths.

Ken, are you reading any of these articles before posting them?

Sure... I'm just surprised at the levity you are giving to the lives of people.

The vaccine is about the disease... There are risks for the vaccine and there are risks for Covid.

94% of people who died of Covid already had problems... an average of 2.6 of other comorbiditiies. You are suggesting to give vaccines to those who have problems already when, as the studies showed, that those 80+ have a greater risk of dying from the vaccine.

Did I say "don't take the vaccine"? no

But you want us to just ignore all information that is available.

"The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people."

https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/how-the-media-is-misreporting-covid-19s-death-toll-in-america/

Are you suggesting "just give the vaccines and forget possible adverse reactions"?

 

[dybmh]

Sure... I'm just surprised at the levity you are giving to the lives of people.

I'm not. Don't be foolish.

But you want us to just ignore all information that is available.

I'm pointing out that the manner that is being used to determine "many adverse reactions" is deeply flawed.

Are you suggesting "just give the vaccines and forget possible adverse reactions"?

If you had said that you were concerned about possible adverse reactions, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure... I'm just surprised at the levity you are giving to the lives of people.

The vaccine is about the disease... There are risks for the vaccine and there are risks for Covid.

94% of people who died of Covid already had problems... an average of 2.6 of other comorbiditiies. You are suggesting to give vaccines to those who have problems already when, as the studies showed, that those 80+ have a greater risk of dying from the vaccine.

Did I say "don't take the vaccine"? no

But you want us to just ignore all information that is available.

"The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people."

https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/how-the-media-is-misreporting-covid-19s-death-toll-in-america/

Are you suggesting "just give the vaccines and forget possible adverse reactions"?

Do you understand math and statistics? Let us say that for group A the death rate with cause X is ?%. For group A the death rate with cause Y is ?%. Now this is an example.

So for the group of elderly with high comorbidities of 2.6 the death rate with Covid is ? For the vaccine it is ? and then the immunity level must be factored in.
Further you have to understand how to find the correct numbers for the deaths caused by the vaccine. Not just those deaths' reported as corelated with the giving of the vaccine, but that the vaccine caused the death. Can you do that?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I am fascinated by something that the news is barraging us with these days:

• there are many people, most of whom are religious believers, who do not believe that vaccines are safe and effective, and
• there are many other people who typically don't believe in gods (I am one), who are quite ready to believe in the efficacy and safety of vaccines, based on what science tells us.

Is this not odd?

My religion teaches me to accept science and that it is a gift from God to be used for the betterment of the world.

So of course I’m all for a vaccine which can help rid us of this pandemic.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Imagine if you are already in the high risk category. Do you take the vaccine?

 

[VoidCat]

Imagine if you are already in the high risk category. Do you take the vaccine?

Depends on what the condition is that causes me to be high risk for covid...some people have crazy bad allergic reactions to most things as a result of genetic conditions so they'll probably might be allergic to something in the vaccine.I have heard some people might have conditions like autoimmune disorders that dont do well with vaccines altho I am not sure if its true. I plan on taking it despite being high risk as I don't have anything that'll prevent me from taking it

 

[Heyo]

Imagine if you are already in the high risk category. Do you take the vaccine?

No. And that "no" is because it is not recommended by the producers or scientists to vaccinate people with high risks for adverse reactions.
Those people can just hope that everyone who is able to get the vaccine has the common sense to take it.

 

[Kenny]

Do you understand math and statistics? Let us say that for group A the death rate with cause X is ?%. For group A the death rate with cause Y is ?%. Now this is an example.

So for the group of elderly with high comorbidities of 2.6 the death rate with Covid is ? For the vaccine it is ? and then the immunity level must be factored in.
Further you have to understand how to find the correct numbers for the deaths caused by the vaccine. Not just those deaths' reported as corelated with the giving of the vaccine, but that the vaccine caused the death. Can you do that?

Absolutely....

Now... do you understand that people are wary because they don't know the long term effects, the effectivity of current vaccines and when you factor in that there are reported adverse reactions it increases the doubt of people wanting to take it?

 

[VoidCat]

No. And that "no" is because it is not recommended by the producers or scientists to vaccinate people with high risks for adverse reactions.
Those people can just hope that everyone who is able to get the vaccine has the common sense to take it.

@loverofhumanity I thought you were talking about high risk for covid not vaccine...is this what you meant? If so I agree with this person

 

[halbhh]

I am fascinated by something that the news is barraging us with these days:

• there are many people, most of whom are religious believers, who do not believe that vaccines are safe and effective, and
• there are many other people who typically don't believe in gods (I am one), who are quite ready to believe in the efficacy and safety of vaccines, based on what science tells us.

Is this not odd?

I thought this was interesting, but trying to figure out who in the world these people are, since I don't know anyone like that in my church (though I have not asked that particular question, but have asked many other questions). The several Christians that I have heard from about the vaccine have already gotten it or are eager to get it.

But, this was interesting:

• North America was the only high-income region where people who follow a religion are “substantially more likely” to say they believe in their religious teachings over science when disagreements arise. “This finding is driven predominantly by the US, where people who have a religion are almost twice as likely to believe their religious teachings (60 percent) as science (32 percent) in cases of disagreement.”

Religion and vaccine refusal are linked. We have to talk about it.

So, in the U.S., it appears there is a distortion of Christianity in relation to science that is not nearly so prominent in other developed nations.

Ergo, if you are accustomed to U.S. Christianity by being a U.S. native, then you may have some views about Christianity that are actually just artifacts of being a U.S. native.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

New Flash! Evangelicalhumanist just figured out something he'd heard before, but never really got.

I had heard the theory (among all the many conspiracy theories out there) that the vaccine had something to do with Bill Gates trying to inject tracking bots into people, so the government (or maybe Microsoft) would always know where they were.

Now, truth here, this seemed so bizarre to me that I just ignored it. I couldn't figure out where such a daft notion would come from.

But as I was listening to the news tonight, I heard a really brief mention of the "nano technology" being used in the creation of mRNA vaccines -- and I suddenly got it. When these scientist vaccine makers use "nano," they mean very small. But the conspiracy theorists among us (who seem to be increasing by leaps and bounds) seem to have equated that with "nano-bots," which we haven't really invented yet, and so remain (just barely) sci-fi!

How could I have been so dumb?

On the other hand, might I point out that Alphabet Inc. (i.e. Google) already knows where you are -- because you told them with your phone!

It is to laugh, really....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

born-again, fundamentalist

That's the problem. That sort of Christianity is an atheist factory. He should've tried mainline Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy. All of which have a deep intellectual tradition, especially the last two (Western converts to Orthodox Christianity tend to be highly educated).

 

[Thief]

maybe I missed it......but I see no one addressing what happens
when the virus encounters someone vaccinated

there is an outstanding ASSUMPTION.....
the virus will DIE..........ALTOGETHER
should it come into contact with someone vaccinated

we already know the virus mutates

when it learns to circumvent our chemistry.....natural OR man made
it becomes MORE resistant

think about it

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Here's one for you Evangelicalhumanist,

A lot of the people who know the Bible the best are atheists. Maybe you should read it?

There is a distinct difference between "knowing" the Bible (quoting chapter, verse, etc.) and understanding the Bible.

For example...I can read ("know") a graduate-level textbook on Chemical Engineering...But I will understand precious little about it.

In a similar vein, an Atheist might be very familiar with scripture...But if they are still atheists, they do NOT understand it, at all.

In fact, they're choosing to not understand it.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

That's the problem. That sort of Christianity is an atheist factory. He should've tried mainline Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy. All of which have a deep intellectual tradition, especially the last two (Western converts to Orthodox Christianity tend to be highly educated).

Are you implying that a fundamentalist Christian perspective is de-facto anti-intellectual?