The moderna vaccine began testing nearly a year ago. It's been in trials for much longer than two weeks. I don't know where you're getting your info from but you're misinformed on the trial timelines.
https://www.modernatx.com/modernas-work-potential-vaccine-against-covid-19
They trialed it for much longer than two weeks. They've been giving it out for much longer than two weeks.
But it has gone through trials???
Why would we think that the drugs cured Trump? From what I've read, the plasma is by far the most effective thing we have and it's not even clear whether or not that did anything. Getting the off-the-shelf drugs that he got is not gonna save you and people shouldn't be fooled into thinking it will.
One third of people in my state have been vaccinated. Half of Israel has been vaccinated. The only side effects are minor discomfort and a variety of freak incidents that are occuring at roughly the same rate as with non vaccinated people. Could be something there with the blood clot issue with j&j, but also seems like that could just be random effect. The only way they could be dangerous is if the side effects come on much later.
Yeah there's risk bc it's a new technology but the tests so far haven't had serious negative effects. Impossible to "prove" it's safe but so far it seems to be so and there's certainly not a lot of evidence showing it's dangerous.
You're seriously here saying it's a literal sign of the apocalypse that your adult children are getting a vaccine... What research are you sending them?? The overwhelming amount of research available suggests that the vaccine is safe. The stuff you are reading and sharing is the minority view.
You got convalescent plasma from a person that previously recovered from Covid??? C'mon now. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
They also completely shut down their country at the beginning to an extent that we never did and have much higher mask usage
Here's an analogy that may be helpful. "Of the people that died in car crashes, the people that were wearing seat belts were in much more violent collisions"
Does this mean that seatbelts cause more violent collisions?? No, it's just because it's harder for you to die if you're wearing a seatbelt so you won't see people dying in the smaller crashes. The SA variant is the violent collision. It shows up more in the infected vaccinated group bc the vaccine (the seatbelt) prevented all the other infections (deaths in minor collisions).
The answer is: it's not. The SA variant is more prevalent in the sample of people that WERE INFECTED. So OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INFECTED, the SA variant was more prevalent (in percentages) in vaccinated people. The absolute count is still smaller. If you were to sample all people (instead of just infected people), the SA variant counts would be lower in vaccinated ppl than in unvaccinated. The purpose of this test was to understand how the vaccine was performing against the SA variant. The results of the test suggest it doesn't perform as well on it, but it's still better than no vaccine and absolutely no reason to believe that you're MORE likely to get Covid after you've had the vaccine.
Israel seems to be doing pretty well
The closest thing they can get to proof is all of the double blind tests that they've run. They basically get a group of, say, 100 people. They give 50 of them the vaccine and give the other 50 a placebo. They then wait a couple of months and measure the infection rates among these groups. The infection rates have been lower in the vaccinated group every single time.
For young healthy people, the odds of it saving your life are very low bc it's unlikely that you would die from it anyway. But it's still going to help prevent you from getting it, which is still good (I definitely don't wanna get a bad flu, even if that's all it is) and it will help reduce the amount of Covid out there in our community, which will make things safer for the older and less healthy folks.
Of the people infected, vaccinated people had a larger percentage of SA variant. This doesn't mean they had more cases. Some simple numbers to illustrate.
1000 vaccinated people 10 cases of Covid 4 cases of SA variant
1000 non vaccinated people 200 cases of Covid 20 cases of SA variant
A relationship like the one above is the only thing the article claims. They pulled 150 Covid positive people from vaccinated group and compared it to 150 Covid positive people from the unvaccinated group. The vaccinated group were much less likely to get infected with anything. If you can find anything in the article (or anything anywhere) that refutes this please share.
I'm sorry man. You really need to consider the fact though that maybe she's right. Evidence shows that this vaccine (just like all other widely used vaccines) is safe and will save lives.
The vaccine makes it less likely you get Covid and lessens severity if you do get it.
Funny you talk about lack of common sense when you lack basic reading comprehension. People without the vaccine were not less likely to get Covid. Of people that WERE infected, the SA variant showed higher prevalence in vaccinated people than non vaccinated.
No??? The obvious explanation for this is that the vaccine protects better against the other strains than it does against the south africa variant. If this were the case, this is exactly what you would see. Infected people in the vaccinated group would see lower prevalence of the variant it protects against and therefore higher prevalence against the variant it doesn't protect against as well.
I already said there's a risk from it and that potential issues would have to be long term. I can't prove there aren't long term issues 10 years down the road (this is literally impossible for all new medicines). I haven't convinced anyone to take it, so you can rest assured that it will be just me suffering these potential side effects.
Although the long term effects are impossible to disprove, we also don't have evidence that they exist. Personally, I will take my chances with the vaccine over Covid, which could also have long term effects. Seems clear you're taking the opposite approach which is fine, but you're basing it at least partially on wrong information and spreading it to everyone. The vaccines have been tested much more thoroughly than you claim. Just as I ignored your question that I clearly couldn't answer, I guess you'll just continue to ignore the fact that you were incredibly, provably wrong about trial timelines.