It took a lot of finding as it's buried deep in the CDC reports, but for those who are interested in the truth, and not in spin, I suggest you read the links below. Not necessarily the full text, just the summary of the conclusions ought to be enough. You need to scroll down through the second to find the chart that was photographed and used in Dr Campbell's video. If you don't want to bother, this is the key paragraph:-

"Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons. Additional future recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted as the virus and immunity levels change."

[Link]

[Link]

Interestingly the questions Dr Campbell asks aren't there at all, so they are all his own. As are the answers. For the CDC view, read the pages referenced above.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Sure, however as both the article itself, and others, admits these vaccines are not long standing....and are liability exempt. The article reads like a puff piece for these vaccines and an attack on anyone who might question.....as if questioning shouldn't itself be a part of what science should be doing.

Yep, drug overuse and misuse is a real and serious problem that is just not talked about or appreciated as much as it should be....I wonder why that is (sarcasm).

You may well be right.....in fact for vulnerable groups I think you are right. However, we don't really know enough and the media and government has very much taken the view that only one side should be heard....and that doesn't sit right with me.

Also there are lots of other related issues once you get beyond those vulnerable groups and talk about vaccinating health populations, especially children who are going to be around for many decades.

But it's a well trodden path that we all have discussed many times.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jan 2022 5.56am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I’ll be honest, I really don’t get all this continuing sensitivity about vaccination now we are clearly at an end game point in terms of the pandemic stage and moving into a far less authoritarian endemic stage.

Vaccines will most likely be offered every year much like… oh yes, the flu vaccine. Big deal. Your choice whether to bother or not. Just like flu.

I also still don’t get the narrative of ‘it doesn’t stop you catching it so why bother’ - I’ve no idea where this common man logic of ‘it’s not a cure’ comes from. It’s never been touted as a cure. It’s also a medical impossibility surely. You don’t ‘cure’ viruses.

It does the job of any good vaccine and that is to limit the effects and transmission to a manageable level. Proven by how little problems omicron has ended up causing (yes it hasn’t affected the lungs in the same way as previous variants but a high viral load in an unvaccinated person still has high potential for serious complications) due to either exposure or vaccine creating enough resistance to prevent serious symptoms.

Also the common cold comparison isn’t a good one from what I understand - common colds are rhinoviruses which are very different in both genetics and symptoms to the influenza virus or COVID and extremely difficult if not impossible to vaccinate against.

So in short, what’s all the fuss about no masks, no passes and a yearly optional vaccine, for a virus that is most likely to become less and less threatening over time.

Any outraged libertarians annoyed at the full and complete relaxation of rules that you made it sound like would be in force forever? I mean really

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

We've got it, it's this one .

He makes assertions from his own interpretation of the data, and presents them as if they are fact. That’s the reality.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Quite unnecessary semantics as to know something you first have to think it.

Also I disagree with your implication that people shouldn't think about their health decisions and just do as they are told.

Well, it's not really a great point though is it, as the health facts on aspirin aren't exactly hidden are they. I certainly knew of them. Again, the point that it's long standing always ill fitted the comparison but obviously not for you.

Like the author of the article you seem to be wanting to force a point that corresponds more to your prejudices on those with scepticism. The point is quite weak...'oh look, they take (insert drug) so that means they shouldn't have any questions with the vaccines'. You could make this point regarding any state approved drug and criticise anyone who raises any doubts over how they are approved.

In fact I think your suggestion that no doubts should be raised can be criticised itself.

My approach has always accepted that each individual has the right over their own health decisions. I can't count the number of times that I've said I have no criticism for those who have taken these vaccines.

However, as this paragraph proves you can't say the same for those who haven't....indeed calling people prize prats. My focus has been on both the corporations and government covid policy.

You are someone who seems to want to make the point that people shouldn't make decisions that introduce any risk into their lives, even statistically small risks or that all their decisions should be based upon some communistic ideal of what you think (or what you have accepted) is best for the whole....like some ant colony.

I don't accept that basic premise is either good for wider society nor the individual going forward.

You can criticise my personal choices as I can yours, and while I do hold to certain principles I don't quite strive for that nebulous moral superiority you've always reached for.....mainly as I view it as illusionary and always open to the hypocrisy charge.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jan 2022 7.13pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)