打完mRNA疫苗身体不适是因为免疫系统被激活，细胞因子cytokine释放来促进抗体合成，免疫细胞增殖等。会有flu like symptoms. 这和干扰素释放有关系。干扰素会升高体温， 因为有利于抑制病原体繁殖， 因为大量能量和蛋白质被调用来合成抗体和扩增免疫细胞，会有肌肉乏力和关节酸痛的症状。这都是正常的，资源调配的结果。 这是正常的免疫反应。 Shingle vaccine的反应强度和mRNA疫苗类似。 还有研究表明副作用和产生的抗体数量正相关。 所以有反应是好事儿，表明免疫系统在提取病毒特征，扩军备战。 The scientists compared the levels of antibodies against the volunteers’ self-reported symptoms—such as chills, feeling tired, feeling unwell, headache, pain at the injection site—over seven days. They found that when the worst symptoms occured after the second shot it was associated with higher antibody levels.
临床试验结果，新冠疫苗注射不增加人群的死亡率 Vaccine Volume 42, Issue 7, 7 March 2024, Pages 1731-1737 Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study Author links open overlay panel Stanley Xu a b , Lina S. Sy a, Vennis Hong a, Paddy Farrington c, Sungching C. Glenn a, Denison S. Ryan a, Abraelle M. Shirley a, Bruno J. Lewin a, Hung-Fu Tseng a, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez d, Jason M. Glanz e f, Bruce Fireman g, David L. McClure h, Laura P. Hurley i, Onchee Yu j, Michael Wernecke k, Ning Smith l, Eric S. Weintraub m, Lei Qian a Show moreAdd to Mendeley Share Cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.032 Get rights and content Under a Creative Commons license open access Highlights •We assessed mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination using a self-controlled case series study. •Relative incidences of 6 death outcomes with risk intervals of 14 and 28 days were obtained. •Relative incidences of non-COVID-19 and all-cause deaths for vaccinated individuals were below 1. •Relative incidences of four cardiac-related death outcomes for vaccinated individuals were below 1. Abstract Background Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. Results For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58–1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60–1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. Conclusion Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
xil 发表于 2024-08-15 17:11 大多数人的记忆力就是这么短暂，不记得在没有免疫屏障下中国突然开放那几个月的惨状，基本在美华人每个人在国内的朋友亲人都有一两例受到严重影响的例子；跟美国的情况完全不一样。如果没有疫苗，美国还不知道要惨多少倍。我认识不少老人，在美国的，得了病都康复了都好好的。
maiqi 发表于 2024-08-16 00:47 我是没逻辑，文科生，现在又是反专家。 "拒绝专家意见，更相信自己的判断" Actually I am very proud of that。 在这个巨大的骗局下能够没有屈服于social pressure 没有屈服于邪恶的government mandate everyone doing that should be very proud of that.
层主我挺你 我是理科生 我觉得说文科生没逻辑的人自己就没逻辑 我看过很多有逻辑的文科生 也看过很多没逻辑的理科生 but that is not the point- 咱们不需要别人肯定咱们有逻辑还是没逻辑 我们确实应该为自己能在那么恶劣的环境下做出了正确的判断并且坚持了下来
昨晚没看到这个帖子，现在让ChatGPT帮我回答， 比我自己打字和找数据支持快 简短来说就是我反复强调的mRAN 疫苗可以看作没有复制能力的病毒， 一个life cycle，引起免疫反应和激活有限； 病毒本身是有强大复制能力，numerous life cycles, 引起免疫反应和免疫系统激活远远高于疫苗本身。疫苗引起的健康风险，包括自身免疫病，病毒本身都有，并且更严重 所以，明智的做法是接种疫苗 Please compare the risk of autoimmune disease of COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 infection. Please provide references. When evaluating the risks of autoimmune diseases associated with COVID-19 vaccines compared to the risks following COVID-19 infection, it’s essential to consider both the nature and frequency of these risks in each context. Here's a summary of the findings based on current research: 1. Risk of Autoimmune Diseases Following COVID-19 VaccinationCOVID-19 vaccines, like any medical intervention, can have side effects, including rare autoimmune reactions. However, these events are generally uncommon and typically less severe compared to those triggered by the virus itself.Myocarditis/Pericarditis: These conditions have been reported at higher rates in younger males (typically under 30 years) following mRNA vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). However, the incidence is still rare, typically ranging from 1 to 5 cases per 100,000 doses. Most cases are mild and resolve with treatment. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): An increased risk of GBS has been observed with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, particularly in older adults. The risk is about 7 to 8 cases per million doses, which is low but noteworthy. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS): This very rare condition, associated with the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, is characterized by blood clots with low platelet counts. The risk is estimated to be about 3 to 4 cases per million doses. 2. Risk of Autoimmune Diseases Following COVID-19 InfectionCOVID-19 infection itself poses a higher risk of triggering autoimmune responses, including some of the same conditions observed with vaccination, but often with greater severity.Myocarditis/Pericarditis: The risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection is significantly higher compared to after vaccination. Studies have shown that infection-related myocarditis is more frequent, especially in younger populations, with some estimates suggesting it occurs at a rate of 11 to 40 cases per 100,000 infections. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): COVID-19 infection has been linked to a higher risk of GBS compared to the vaccine, with the risk varying based on age and severity of the infection. Estimates suggest the risk of GBS post-infection is about 1.5 to 3 times higher than following vaccination. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS): The risk of developing TTS or other thrombotic events is higher after a COVID-19 infection than after vaccination, especially in severe cases of the disease. The exact incidence varies, but it is clear that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of these events more than the vaccine. Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS): MIS is a severe condition that affects children and adults and can follow COVID-19 infection. It involves widespread inflammation and can lead to significant complications. MIS is not associated with COVID-19 vaccines but is a serious potential outcome of the infection itself. SummaryCOVID-19 Vaccination: The risk of developing an autoimmune disease post-vaccination is low. The cases that do occur are generally mild and much rarer than similar conditions resulting from the infection itself. COVID-19 Infection: The risk of developing autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection is higher and often more severe. Conditions such as myocarditis, GBS, and TTS occur more frequently and with more significant consequences. ReferencesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Provides detailed reports on vaccine side effects, including rates of autoimmune conditions. World Health Organization (WHO): Offers global perspectives on the safety and risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and infection. Peer-Reviewed Studies: New England Journal of Medicine: Studies on myocarditis risks post-vaccination vs. post-infection. The Lancet: Analyses of autoimmune conditions linked to both COVID-19 vaccines and the infection.
平明寻白羽 发表于 2024-08-15 16:44 更新，要求chatGPT-4o 提供数据来源：CDC， WHO, 同行评议医学杂志包括The New England Journal of Medicine， The Lancet and JAMA Here’s a more detailed breakdown of COVID-19 mortality rates by 10-year age groups for a naive population: Estimated Mortality Rates by 10-Year Age Group (Naive Population) 0-9 years: <0.01% Very low mortality, with most cases being mild or asymptomatic in this age group. 10-19 years: <0.01% Slightly higher than the youngest age group, but still very low overall. 20-29 years: 0.01% - 0.1% Young adults generally have a low risk of severe outcomes. 30-39 years: 0.1% - 0.3% Mortality starts to increase slightly, particularly for those with underlying health conditions. 40-49 years: 0.3% - 0.5% The risk continues to rise, with more severe cases reported in this age group. 50-59 years: 0.5% - 1.0% Significant increase in mortality rates, especially for individuals with comorbidities. 60-69 years: 1.0% - 3.0% The mortality rate escalates in this age group, with higher risks for those with pre-existing conditions. 70-79 years: 3.0% - 10% Older adults face a much higher risk, with mortality rates becoming substantial. 80-89 years: 10% - 20% The mortality rate is very high in this age group, particularly in populations with poor access to healthcare. 90+ years: 20% - 30% The oldest individuals have the highest mortality rates, often exceeding 20%. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Provides detailed age-specific mortality data based on U.S. cases. World Health Organization (WHO): Offers comprehensive global data on COVID-19 mortality. Studies and Reports:Peer-reviewed articles in journals like The Lancet and JAMA offer detailed analyses of mortality rates across various demographics. These estimates are based on early data and studies conducted before widespread vaccination and other public health interventions were in place. If you need real-time data or more recent analyses, I can search for updated sources.
The mortality rate of COVID-19 among vaccinated populations is significantly lower than among unvaccinated or naive populations, thanks to the protection provided by vaccines. The effectiveness of vaccines in preventing severe illness and death, however, can vary depending on factors such as the specific vaccine used, the variant of the virus, and the age and health status of the individual. Estimated Mortality Rates by 10-Year Age Group (Vaccinated Population) 0-9 years: Extremely low (<0.001%) COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated children is very low, with vaccines offering strong protection. 10-19 years: Extremely low (<0.001%) Similar to the youngest age group, mortality is extremely rare in vaccinated adolescents. 20-29 years: Very low (<0.01%) Mortality remains very low in young adults who are vaccinated, with vaccines reducing the risk of severe outcomes. 30-39 years: Very low (<0.01%) The mortality rate remains low, with vaccines significantly reducing the likelihood of death. 40-49 years: Low (<0.05%) The risk of death remains low, although it increases slightly with age, even among vaccinated individuals. 50-59 years: Low to moderate (0.05% - 0.1%) Vaccinated individuals in this age group have a reduced but still present risk, particularly if they have underlying health conditions. 60-69 years: Moderate (0.1% - 0.3%) The mortality rate is higher but still substantially lower than in unvaccinated populations. 70-79 years: Higher (0.3% - 1.0%) Mortality rates increase with age, but vaccines still offer significant protection against severe outcomes. 80-89 years: Elevated (1.0% - 3.0%) The risk of mortality is higher in older adults, even with vaccination, but vaccines still reduce the rate significantly compared to unvaccinated peers. 90+ years: Elevated (3.0% - 6.0%) The oldest individuals remain at higher risk, though vaccination continues to offer life-saving protection. Important Considerations Booster Doses: Additional booster doses further reduce the risk of severe outcomes and death, especially in older and vulnerable populations. Variants: Some variants, particularly those with immune escape potential (e.g., Delta, Omicron), may affect vaccine efficacy, though vaccines still generally prevent severe disease and death. Underlying Health Conditions: Even among vaccinated individuals, those with significant comorbidities may face higher mortality risks. Long-Term Immunity: Over time, immunity may wane, and booster doses can be essential for maintaining protection. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Provides ongoing updates on vaccine effectiveness and COVID-19 mortality among different age groups. World Health Organization (WHO): Offers global data on vaccine efficacy and mortality rates across different demographics. Peer-Reviewed Studies: Research published in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet provides detailed analyses of mortality rates among vaccinated populations. These figures are estimates based on available data and may vary based on the specific population, healthcare quality, and timing of vaccination.
what''''''''''''''''s the covid mortality rate among people without vaccination by age groups ChatGPT said: ChatGPT The COVID-19 mortality rate among unvaccinated individuals varies significantly by age group. Older individuals generally face a much higher mortality risk, while younger people have a lower risk. Here''''''''''''''''s a general breakdown of the mortality rates by age group for unvaccinated people, based on data from earlier in the pandemic before widespread vaccination: Under 18 years: Extremely low mortality rate, less than 0.01%. 18-29 years: Low mortality rate, around 0.03% to 0.1%. 30-39 years: Slightly higher, around 0.1% to 0.3%. 40-49 years: Around 0.4% to 1%. 50-59 years: Around 1% to 3%. 60-69 years: Around 3% to 8%. 70-79 years: Around 8% to 15%. 80+ years: Extremely high, ranging from 15% to 30% or even higher. These rates can vary depending on several factors, including underlying health conditions, healthcare quality, and geographical location. What''''''''''''''''s the covid mortality rate with vaccination by age groups? The COVID-19 mortality rate among vaccinated individuals is significantly lower than that of unvaccinated individuals across all age groups. Vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), have been shown to be highly effective in reducing severe outcomes, including death. Here''''''''''''''''s a general breakdown based on data from periods when vaccines were widely available: Estimated Mortality Rates with Vaccination by Age Group: Under 18 years: Mortality rate: Extremely low, approaching 0%. 18-29 years: Mortality rate: Less than 0.01%. 30-39 years: Mortality rate: Less than 0.01% to 0.02%. 40-49 years: Mortality rate: Around 0.02% to 0.05%. 50-59 years: Mortality rate: Around 0.05% to 0.1%. 60-69 years: Mortality rate: Around 0.1% to 0.3%. 70-79 years: Mortality rate: Around 0.3% to 1%. 80+ years: Mortality rate: Around 1% to 4%. Key Points: These rates are approximate and vary based on the specific vaccine, variants of the virus, and other factors like health conditions and the time since the last dose. Booster shots have been shown to further reduce mortality rates, particularly among older adults and those with pre-existing conditions. Even in older age groups, where the mortality rate is higher, vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of death compared to being unvaccinated. These figures reflect the situation during various stages of the pandemic when vaccines were available, and should be considered in the context of evolving virus variants and updated vaccine formulations. 临床试验结果，新冠疫苗注射不增加人群的死亡率 Vaccine Volume 42, Issue 7, 7 March 2024, Pages 1731-1737 Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study Author links open overlay panel Stanley Xu a b , et al
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.032 Highlights •We assessed mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination using a self-controlled case series study. •Relative incidences of 6 death outcomes with risk intervals of 14 and 28 days were obtained. •Relative incidences of non-COVID-19 and all-cause deaths for vaccinated individuals were below 1. •Relative incidences of four cardiac-related death outcomes for vaccinated individuals were below 1. Abstract Background Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. Results For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58–1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60–1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. Conclusion Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
你把最重要的部分省略了。是故意还是无意的？ Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Vaccine Safety Datalink under contract 75D30122D15429 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
cs5560 发表于 2024-08-16 12:41 你把最重要的部分省略了。是故意还是无意的？ Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Vaccine Safety Datalink under contract 75D30122D15429 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC是利益相关方。它花钱支持的这个文章就像疫苗公司花钱发的广告。 data本身不是随机提取的。而且很奇怪只用了８个sites中的６个来分析： “.....Data from six out of the eight VSD sites were included in the analysis of cardiac-related death outcomes, as the remaining two did not have cause-of-death data available for the study period, although they had COVID-19 diagnosis codes and SARS-CoV-2 test data available for identifying non-COVID-19 deaths. "
CDC给这文章花了$29.7 million，可比普通广告贵多了。 请看下面的关于这个contract的link： https://govtribe.com/award/federal-idv-award/indefinite-delivery-contract-75d30122d15429 The Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pittsburgh awarded a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract with a potential value of $149 million to provide Vaccine Safety Datalink services. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Kaiser Foundation Research Institute Division, doing business as Kaiser Permanente, received a delivery order for $29.7 million as the prime contractor.
这话应该这么说： 疫苗教的人如果只是自己打，那没什么问题。但是忽悠别人也打来保护自己就缺德了。 更可恨的是那些自己不打，却到处宣传疫苗好处的人，真的是居心叵测。
因为最近看到的都是疫苗教的在开贴科普，分享，总结。。。
老年人和有基础病的，感染新冠重症和死亡率是最高的
他们最需要通过疫苗注射建立免疫力，在感染新冠的时候才能减轻症状和降低死亡率
你一点生物和医学知识都没有还这么opnionated
退一万步接受你的假设说的这个医生淋巴瘤是因为疫苗刺激免疫系统激活了，那么他不打疫苗感染新冠病毒会怎样？mRNA疫苗某种意义上是一个life/replicate cycle的新冠病毒， 新冠病毒可是能迅速指数级别复制无数个life/replicate cycle的活病毒，这样情况下， 这位医生的淋巴瘤反而不会被激活了？
呵呵， 看
只有观点，拿不出数据
要数据就撒泼打滚耍赖
还要指责别人不应该要数据
LOL
。。。所以即使疫苗副作用那么强，依然还是打了更安全。。。 还是我先前说的，你可以认为你打了更安全。但是凭什么你认为别人打了也更安全，进而实行疫苗强制？每个人的自身身体状况和生活环境都是不同的，难道就不许有人确实有自身免疫力能战胜病毒？或者人家有某些特殊病症不能打疫苗？或者人家自个儿在空间站里住着呢，凭啥要打疫苗？ 当初疫苗强制的时候，医生开免疫苗证明超过几张都是要被吊销执照的。这种政治性的强制难道不是违背人伦的吗？
加州85%的人口打了covid疫苗，就是将近三千三百万人口打了covid疫苗，显然那时选择打疫苗是利大于弊。剩下的15%里面有老人和有基础病不适合打，需要保护
很早就有疫苗与自身免疫病的书籍， 可惜不是他们想宣传的， 有些正义人士都被标上反科学
转圈丢人的怕不是你自己吧。 成天婊啊婊的，讲话不带脏字不摸黑别人就不会讲话了。
人家发了数据你不看，说人家的数据是假的。 人家问你要数据你骂人。 好不容易找出来个在不出名的日本宗教大学的语言学教授的“科学论文”，发表在个编辑里不是语言学就是律师的“科学杂志”上，你又信了。 合着人家给你的权威机构数据就不是数据，给你的权威科学期刊上的论文就不算论文，偏那篇拿个显微镜看到个不知道啥佐剂就当纳米颗粒就直接说致癌的就算科学论据了。只能发在自嗨的杂志上还是因为被迫害了。 真是严密的逻辑闭环啊。
我跟你讲，我都懒得进这个帖子跟你们讲科学，浪费。我进来是佩服楼主和几个妹子花力气跟你们磨，以及看不下去你讲不过就骂脏话。
因为这是恶行传染病！而且在原始毒株/Delta毒王阶段，疫苗是可以阻断传播的， 所以你是否打疫苗，这后果并不是仅仅体现在你个人身上，也会反应在整个社会层面。。 即使你个人免疫力强，对病毒是无症状，但你不打疫苗造成病毒的传播，依然会对其他人造成伤害。。
新冠对年轻人杀伤小，美国年轻人当初就不管不顾的到处浪，结果祸害死了多少无辜老人？
所以疫苗强制政策都是有前提的，你如果选择完全家里蹲，不接触社会，那么自然没人强迫你打疫苗 但如果你要出来读书上班，参加群体活动，长期进入公共空间接触其他人，那么自然就需要强迫打疫苗
打完mRNA疫苗身体不适是因为免疫系统被激活，细胞因子cytokine释放来促进抗体合成，免疫细胞增殖等。会有flu like symptoms. 这和干扰素释放有关系。干扰素会升高体温， 因为有利于抑制病原体繁殖， 因为大量能量和蛋白质被调用来合成抗体和扩增免疫细胞，会有肌肉乏力和关节酸痛的症状。这都是正常的，资源调配的结果。
这是正常的免疫反应。
Shingle vaccine的反应强度和mRNA疫苗类似。
还有研究表明副作用和产生的抗体数量正相关。
所以有反应是好事儿，表明免疫系统在提取病毒特征，扩军备战。
The scientists compared the levels of antibodies against the volunteers’ self-reported symptoms—such as chills, feeling tired, feeling unwell, headache, pain at the injection site—over seven days. They found that when the worst symptoms occured after the second shot it was associated with higher antibody levels.
所以按照你的说法，假如某人由于自身免疫疾病不能打疫苗，他/她就只能自绝于人民，自我隔离，不要进入任何公共空间。或者就要冒着生命危险去打一针，因为可以为了就大部分人的健康而牺牲这个个人的健康甚至生命。 所以当年土工的强制隔离政策也是完全符合保护大多数人的利益的，以至于那些心血管病人，脑血栓病人不能去医院急诊或者由于隔离措施耽误了治疗也是合情合理的，对吧？
这里的副作用，不是指发烧，肌肉发酸这种正常疫苗反应，而是指血栓这种恶行副作用。。
新冠副作用确实大。。远远大于普通其他疫苗， mRNA的副作用又大过中国的灭活疫苗，不少人死于疫苗的副作用，这些也都是客观事实，不用争辩
但即使那么大的副作用，在一开始的阶段，依然远远比直接感染原始毒株/Delta毒王来的安全啊。。
无非就是奥秘出来后，杀伤力小了，所以相比之下这个疫苗副作用就太大了，得不偿失，所以现在确实不用打了。。
他们自己现在都承认毒针不能阻断传播， 你的信息哪里来的？ 话说澳大利亚已经有个最大州(州府悉尼）的前州长（澳可能有7个州级政府吧）承认强制毒针是错误， 主流媒体也发文要其他政客们站出来认错道歉。 如果不是自媒体的发展， 所有韭菜都会被忽悠感恩地接受毒针
正因为社会中有那些抵抗力弱，而且因为各种原因无法打疫苗的弱势群体。。 所以其他人才更要打疫苗，从而创造群体免疫，来保护这些人。。
原本这些人就已经身体差了，就已经没法打疫苗了，而且还不得不出门 结果却有人明明可以打疫苗却不打，还故意出门浪，传播病毒，这不是祸害人吗？
当初美国年轻人就是这么做的，祸害死了好多无辜老人
中国的隔离政策当然也是低保户大多数人的利益，死于隔离的人远远少于放开后死于新冠的人。。 但这个隔离政策也一样存在损益比， 针对原始病株和Delta，封控利大于弊，所以清零是正确的。 而面对奥秘，封控成本就太高了，所以选择开放。。
早说了好几次了，你们能不能不要在时间线上来回乱跳
疫苗能阻断原始病株和Delta的传播，但无法阻断奥秘的传播。。
但你不能用后者来否定前者。。 这思维也太乱了。。
原始毒株是被后面传染性更高的株取代， 而不是靠毒针， 毒针不防任何传播， 这是连主流都承认的事实
不这样他们的逻辑怎么闭环，怎么能立于不败之地
说的是疫苗能阻断原始毒株传播，又没说疫苗能在全球范围内灭绝原始毒株
你们这都啥理解力？
造谣嘛
正经机构的MD, biomedical field 的PhD们99.99%都是有学养支持mRNA疫苗并努力推广疫苗接种的。特别是vulnerable population.
每次和没啥逻辑的人解释东西，都有想吐血的感觉。。。
摸摸，在网上跟人科普，切记不要动气。科普是好事，但跟他们绕圈把自己气到了就亏了。
打疫苗没有防止感染?有没有防止人死亡? 出生率有没有骤降?周围人有没有迅速变老?打完疫苗有没有出现各种各样稀奇古怪的疼痛或病?大家心里都没数吗?
Vaccine Volume 42, Issue 7, 7 March 2024, Pages 1731-1737
Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study Author links open overlay panel
Stanley Xu a b , Lina S. Sy a, Vennis Hong a, Paddy Farrington c, Sungching C. Glenn a, Denison S. Ryan a, Abraelle M. Shirley a, Bruno J. Lewin a, Hung-Fu Tseng a, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez d, Jason M. Glanz e f, Bruce Fireman g, David L. McClure h, Laura P. Hurley i, Onchee Yu j, Michael Wernecke k, Ning Smith l, Eric S. Weintraub m, Lei Qian a Show moreAdd to Mendeley
Share
Cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.032 Get rights and content Under a Creative Commons license open access Highlights •We assessed mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination using a self-controlled case series study. •Relative incidences of 6 death outcomes with risk intervals of 14 and 28 days were obtained. •Relative incidences of non-COVID-19 and all-cause deaths for vaccinated individuals were below 1. •Relative incidences of four cardiac-related death outcomes for vaccinated individuals were below 1. Abstract Background Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. Results For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58–1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60–1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. Conclusion Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
好吧，我无话可说了。我们的思路完全是在两个不同的平行空间。 你认为为了大多数人的健康和生命可以人为牺牲掉少数人的健康和生命。而且支持政府在整个社会层面实行这种强制措施。 我坚持认为每个个人的健康和生命的决定权应该在个人手中。当政府不得不拿走这个权力的时候，应该有相应的补偿措施来争取个人的自愿合作，而不是强制措施。尤其是当这种行政措施引起损害的时候，政府要出面赔偿，而不是掩盖真相，逃避责任。
“我坚持认为每个个人的健康和生命的决定权应该在个人手中。” ============= 上面解释过了，这是有前提的， 即个人能完全承担自己行为带来的后果。没有所谓的externality 外部性, 个人行为不会对他人造成影响。。 但很明显，这个前提在恶性传染病上是不成立的。。
这就类似于抽烟， 完全躲起来自己抽，也完全自费医疗，那么随便抽，抽死别人都无所谓 但如果在公开场合抽，强迫让别人吸二手烟 或者无力自费医疗，吸烟后得病，需要花别人的税收来医， 那么这个人的抽烟自由就该被限制。。
没有收好处费。跟你们耗得浪费了好多时间才是真的。（笑眯眯的说，你看，我们这种decent的人就不会隔三句问一次：成天来抹黑疫苗，你是收了多少好处费啊。倒是你们，怎么成天想着收好处费啊？）
//打疫苗没有防止感染? 有。2021年对原始病毒，efficacy是90%。到了三年后的今天，大概是40%到50%
//有没有防止人死亡? 有。请参见楼主的数据。
//出生率有没有骤降? 出生率跟疫苗有什么关系？打了疫苗是不育了还是不举了？我没有去查出生率有没有降。但就算降了，跟疫苗有correlation吗？就算有，causation的论据在哪里？
//周围人有没有迅速变老? 我没有啊。你有吗？你最近生活压力很大吗？天天上网跟人吵架真是很伤身啊。
//打完疫苗有没有出现各种各样稀奇古怪的疼痛或病? 我是没有。你有的话，I’m sorry for your suffering。新冠后遗症也好，疫苗后遗症也好，我都表示同情。确实磨人。但不是说我三年前打了疫苗，今儿开始耳鸣也能怪疫苗的。我今儿还看了你发的好多贴呢，我耳鸣可以怪你吗？strong correlation哎！
//大家心里都没数吗? 我相信大多数人心里有数。但大多数人心里有的数，和你想要的数，大概也不太一样
综上所述，你高兴就好。
这个问题，我不是专家，只能分享我自己的思考过程。 surprisingly enough，我和楼上一位反疫苗的朋友的思路是一样的：这是一个你需要按照自己实际情况计算风险得出答案的问题。（但我和他的前提略有不同，我的前提是这是在不是严重公共卫生危机/恶性传染病的情况下。当年的covid，一直到omicron之前，我都是当作公卫危机处理的）
那我算的风险包括了哪几个因素呢？ 第一，我得这个病的机率。比如，我是在家上班还是每天要坐公共交通跟很多人挤在封闭空间里。比如，我家是不是有个幼儿园的娃成天带各种病毒回来。比如，我是不是常常出差或者party。 第二，我能否承受得病的后果。比如，是不是得了最多也就躺一个礼拜，比如，我周围有没有免疫缺陷或者高危人群（eg我上班是不是会常常见到一个癌症化疗中的同事）。比如，我是否自己有重症的危险。甚至，我能不能接受有一万份之一的可能性得了shingle有可能会痛几个月的后果（不能，所以再不喜欢打疫苗，够年纪了我也会立刻去打） 第三，打疫苗的cost和风险。这个包括了我要约时间开车去打这么多疫苗，包括打了疫苗是否要躺两天，包括打了疫苗有后遗症的机率有多大，这些。
这几点综合起来，我才能决定打不打。 比如说流感疫苗，我大部分时间在家上班，也不太见人不容易得，就算得了也就躺几天十之八九不需要进医院。我就没有去打。但如果是冬天，每天坐一小时公车上班，我一定会打。（坐公车被喷嚏淋头flu躺了一个礼拜的教训太惨了）
比如covid，自从omicron之后我也没有那么大的动力继续去booster。但是，我订好机票要去见我爹妈的话，我和娃都在去之前两个月打了疫苗。因为他们高危人群，他们被我们传染了的最坏后果我不能承受。
比如rsv，我家娃大了，我不常常和有小娃的人见面。就算得了，除了麻烦也没有太严重。我就不打。
比如百白破。我过期了多少年没打。但我生娃的时候在医院听说百日咳流行，娃一生出来我立刻打了一针。因为娃被我传染了的后果我不能承受，我甚至还希望母乳里的抗体可以给娃抗一下。我因为这个百白破手臂肿了一个多月。但就算你提前跟我说打了这个手臂会肿半年，我还是会打啊。
中国突然开放时，每个中国人都已经打了好几针疫苗了。这明明是疫苗无效你却倒过来说。 你是记忆力有问题还是坏啊？
得看什么疫苗，当时国内连辉瑞都打不上，moderna没有，针对新毒株的二价更没有
睁眼说瞎话！疫苗副反应和病毒感染引起症状是不同的机制！rna疫苗是一个脑残疫苗。如果外来遗传物质可以随便进出细胞核，那么这种辅助RNa的转染剂本身就很不安全。
你这疫苗可一点不防传染
covid 疫苗就不要打了，传统技术疫苗，自己决定吧。
你叫不醒装睡的人 但是可以唤醒旁观者
我非常同意 大家可以观察下自己的娃 多少得湿疹 哮喘 已经对各种东西过敏的孩子 症状是在打完那些强制的疫苗之后发生的 还有自闭症 多动症
我们以前在国内 没有那么多匪夷所思的过敏 到了美国真开了眼了 我认为和婴幼儿时期疫苗越大越多有很大关系 婴幼儿免疫系统还没有发育完全 搞这么多外来的东西进身体 太容易把免疫系统搞乱了 另外疫苗里的汞对神经系统的损伤已经是证实的了。反正我很后悔以前不懂 都听医生的 这次乱象之后 我再也不信这些所谓权威了 还是要靠自己做研究
which may not be a bad thing lol
层主我挺你 我是理科生 我觉得说文科生没逻辑的人自己就没逻辑 我看过很多有逻辑的文科生 也看过很多没逻辑的理科生 but that is not the point- 咱们不需要别人肯定咱们有逻辑还是没逻辑 我们确实应该为自己能在那么恶劣的环境下做出了正确的判断并且坚持了下来
没错 公司因为白痴登的总统令要求所有在家上班的也要打喵的时候 有多少人意识到这跟科学已经没半毛钱关系了？就是大型服从性训练
昨晚没看到这个帖子，现在让ChatGPT帮我回答， 比我自己打字和找数据支持快
简短来说就是我反复强调的mRAN 疫苗可以看作没有复制能力的病毒， 一个life cycle，引起免疫反应和激活有限； 病毒本身是有强大复制能力，numerous life cycles, 引起免疫反应和免疫系统激活远远高于疫苗本身。疫苗引起的健康风险，包括自身免疫病，病毒本身都有，并且更严重
所以，明智的做法是接种疫苗
Please compare the risk of autoimmune disease of COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 infection. Please provide references.
When evaluating the risks of autoimmune diseases associated with COVID-19 vaccines compared to the risks following COVID-19 infection, it’s essential to consider both the nature and frequency of these risks in each context. Here's a summary of the findings based on current research: 1. Risk of Autoimmune Diseases Following COVID-19 Vaccination COVID-19 vaccines, like any medical intervention, can have side effects, including rare autoimmune reactions. However, these events are generally uncommon and typically less severe compared to those triggered by the virus itself. Myocarditis/Pericarditis: These conditions have been reported at higher rates in younger males (typically under 30 years) following mRNA vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). However, the incidence is still rare, typically ranging from 1 to 5 cases per 100,000 doses. Most cases are mild and resolve with treatment. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): An increased risk of GBS has been observed with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, particularly in older adults. The risk is about 7 to 8 cases per million doses, which is low but noteworthy. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS): This very rare condition, associated with the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, is characterized by blood clots with low platelet counts. The risk is estimated to be about 3 to 4 cases per million doses. 2. Risk of Autoimmune Diseases Following COVID-19 Infection COVID-19 infection itself poses a higher risk of triggering autoimmune responses, including some of the same conditions observed with vaccination, but often with greater severity. Myocarditis/Pericarditis: The risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection is significantly higher compared to after vaccination. Studies have shown that infection-related myocarditis is more frequent, especially in younger populations, with some estimates suggesting it occurs at a rate of 11 to 40 cases per 100,000 infections. Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): COVID-19 infection has been linked to a higher risk of GBS compared to the vaccine, with the risk varying based on age and severity of the infection. Estimates suggest the risk of GBS post-infection is about 1.5 to 3 times higher than following vaccination. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS): The risk of developing TTS or other thrombotic events is higher after a COVID-19 infection than after vaccination, especially in severe cases of the disease. The exact incidence varies, but it is clear that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of these events more than the vaccine. Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS): MIS is a severe condition that affects children and adults and can follow COVID-19 infection. It involves widespread inflammation and can lead to significant complications. MIS is not associated with COVID-19 vaccines but is a serious potential outcome of the infection itself. Summary COVID-19 Vaccination: The risk of developing an autoimmune disease post-vaccination is low. The cases that do occur are generally mild and much rarer than similar conditions resulting from the infection itself. COVID-19 Infection: The risk of developing autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection is higher and often more severe. Conditions such as myocarditis, GBS, and TTS occur more frequently and with more significant consequences. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Provides detailed reports on vaccine side effects, including rates of autoimmune conditions. World Health Organization (WHO): Offers global perspectives on the safety and risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and infection. Peer-Reviewed Studies: New England Journal of Medicine: Studies on myocarditis risks post-vaccination vs. post-infection. The Lancet: Analyses of autoimmune conditions linked to both COVID-19 vaccines and the infection.
你把最重要的部分省略了。是故意还是无意的？ Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Vaccine Safety Datalink under contract 75D30122D15429 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
同发现！看到这一撮人上串下跳就觉得烦, 主党的五毛真不少
都是为了选举, 呵呵, 微信群现在到处传这种misinformation
我根本不觉着这重要啊，为了省版面，只捡数据部分贴
也没注意funding相关的内容
本来绝对多数biomedical research都是来自government funding
觉着这个有问题的就是来自于反建制的bias啊
本来正常观点形成过程是数据+逻辑分析=结论， 数据和结论冲突，修正结论
通常这个人群陷入了逻辑反转的trap
结论绝对正确的， 任何不支持这个观点的数据都是可疑的，有问题的。逆向逻辑闭环。
CDC是利益相关方。它花钱支持的这个文章就像疫苗公司花钱发的广告。 data本身不是随机提取的。而且很奇怪只用了８个sites中的６个来分析： “.....Data from six out of the eight VSD sites were included in the analysis of cardiac-related death outcomes, as the remaining two did not have cause-of-death data available for the study period, although they had COVID-19 diagnosis codes and SARS-CoV-2 test data available for identifying non-COVID-19 deaths. "
太可怕了！可怜这样的死亡案例都不被作为是mRNA疫苗引起的来对待！
这个很难讲。我一针没打过。之前在美也阳过。恰好在国内刚开放的时候回去了一段时间。全中国都阳了，包括我父母。我还天天跟他们住一起。但我没阳。 我公司也有好多人当时打了好几针，该阳照样阳。
主党喜欢控制教育控制宣传，蛊惑人心
你有证据中国的疫苗比辉瑞，moderna差吗？这个时候怎么不讲科学了？
疫情期间，有不少非西方国家使用了中国疫苗，如果和辉瑞比相差非常大的话，这些国家会比美国，英国爆发得更严重，也应该早有不少文章报道了。没有这样的文章正说明其实所有的疫苗保护效果都一样差。
有人强制你了？
在老年组防重症防死亡灭活疫苗和mRNA疫苗同样有效。
CDC给这文章花了$29.7 million，可比普通广告贵多了。
请看下面的关于这个contract的link： https://govtribe.com/award/federal-idv-award/indefinite-delivery-contract-75d30122d15429
The Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pittsburgh awarded a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract with a potential value of $149 million to provide Vaccine Safety Datalink services. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Kaiser Foundation Research Institute Division, doing business as Kaiser Permanente, received a delivery order for $29.7 million as the prime contractor.
反疫苗的人永远都有，但是说不同的声音都是民主党的五毛就过分了。这些反疫苗的，我倒觉得过去8年从没投票给自由派，自己政治站队了，还贼喊捉贼。讨论疫苗就讨论疫苗，要对事不对人
就好像，你说骑电动车要带安全帽，但是是不是要质检部门，让安全帽的质量标准，你带的合格的安全帽才OK. 疫苗也是一样。很多医生觉得就是数据不够，匆匆上马。数据被大药厂因为大批政府订单和各国订单绑架，而没有时间去完善疫苗。就把上亿人当了小白鼠。
老娘一针没打 去年秋才感染 而且不是空气传播 是水杯不洁，都能明确到哪一个水杯，是我所认识所有人中最晚被感染的。 一盒Paxlovid解决
骗局
直到感染我才告诉别人我没打疫苗。我所有认识的人只有我没打疫苗
可怜地球 可怜大家的青春。谁再说这个中文病名我就想拍死谁
就他妈当没经历世界大战 找补点吧
世界格局从此极度转折的趋势开始了
他妈谁造的病毒谁知道 操
前段时间路透社报道美军方秘密操作抹黑中国疫苗
无知者无畏 不可怕，可怕的是睁眼说瞎话。