Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, I know someone personally who needed epinephrine after getting first shot of Pfizer (exactly why they require you to stick around after getting the shot). She went to the doctor and he recommended to get a J&J shot to get fully vaccinated.

CDC literally recommends this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/specific-groups/allergies.html

This isn't hard.
Has the CDC, NIH, FDA or Vaccine manufacturer even done studies and trials on mixing vaccines or was the person you personally know used as an experiment subject by their doctor.

 
Has the CDC, NIH, FDA or Vaccine manufacturer even done studies and trials on mixing vaccines or was the person you personally know used as an experiment subject by their doctor.


Re-read what the CDC recommended. CDC recommended those who are allergic to discuss with their doctor to see if cross vaccination is the right choice for them.

I did not say CDC recommended mixing vaccines

I think this is the problem you have. You don't read any links that are handed to you and you immediately get defensive.
 
Re-read what I wrote.
So you are dismissing my point and fact that even if fully vaccinated it does not stop infection or illness. But you insist that fully vaccination is the answer.

Riddle me this: What is that eventual game plan, let’s say the entire US is 100% fully vaccinated and cases, transmission, infection, illness, hospitalization and death still are elevated crushing the medical system, what next Sherlock?
 
That poster is providing an example, I find nothing racist in that example or inciting another to take any action. Grow a pair.

They provided an example by comparing a long list of people who have done no harm to anyone around them with a group who does.
 
Re-read what the CDC recommended. CDC recommended those who are allergic to discuss with their doctor to see if cross vaccination is the right choice for them.

I did not say CDC recommended mixing vaccines

I think this is the problem you have. You don't read any links that are handed to you and you immediately get defensive.
No studies or trials have been done with mixing vaccines how is your doctor making this decision. If the patient died who is going to wear it the doctor, nah I forgot under EUA everyone has immunity from liability, got it.
 
I wonder if this would change if employees refused to come back to the office without a such a mandate.

Despite the overbearing presence in forums like this, the anti-vaxers are a minority view, especially among people educated enough to work at Apple. In Santa Clara county, where Cupertino is, 84% of people over 18 are fully vaccinated. If the majority were as unaccommodating of that minority view as the vocal minority is of everyone else, this would get reduced to a sidebar discussion about how to accommodate the religious freedoms of a very small number of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbayrgs
  • Like
Reactions: hop
They provided an example by comparing a long list of people who have done no harm to anyone around them with a group who does.
Maybe the example was in poor taste, I just don’t get the overreaction by the other poster. People need to chill and tone down the “woke-ness”.

Disclosure: I have friends from many faiths and they are confused as to people who don’t follow their faith get all up in arms over the mentioned through example. Now if someone is posting hate speech to act on that is unacceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EyeTack
Very good. I’m not for mandates at all, especially for something that’s still in a clinical study till 2023.
I know this story is floating around, but it isn't true/is incredibly misleading.

The first trials for the authorised started around 16 months ago, and the last stage (P3) reported its results last year/early this year. They were peer reviewed, published in medical journals (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J), and on the basis of that, authorised for use by regulators around the world. As is totally normal, some of the trials are continuing to check in with participants, but the only thing they're still really checking is how long the protection from them lasts.

In case anyone is still worrying about the possibility of long term side effects:

Vaccines are just an immune system training session, so are only in your system for a few weeks or so before being destroyed by your immune system and broken down by your body, with the mRNA vaccines themselves being destroyed even more quickly. Your immune system then creates protective antibodies and t-cells to recognise and destroy anything that looks like what the vaccine put in you, in the future, like the real coronavirus, just as it would with a real infection.

This is probably why in the history of all vaccines, it’s never taken more than about 2 months for a side effect to occur after vaccination. After all, it’s a bit hard to get a side effect from something that hasn’t been in you for many months/years. And again, remember that the first trials started more than 8x longer ago than that 2 month window.

This thread from an immunologist goes over what happens in more detail.

Aren’t the vaccinated also equally spreading Delta. Help me understand your logic.
Even though Delta is much more infectious, the vaccines make it significantly less likely you'll get infected to begin with, as well as ensuring that if you do, your immune system will already have protective antibodies and t-cells to kick its arse and help you recover, and therefore not be infectious anymore, more quickly.

It’s politically driven and done without transparency plus being less than 50% effective against Delta while FDA requires at least 50% or higher efficacy means the FDA is being disingenuous.
This isn't true. The efficacy of the authorised vaccines against Delta is much higher than that, and much higher than that when it comes to preventing serious cases that cause hospitalisation and death.

Pfizer basically tainted the trial group and used the global population in mass with the aid of FDA to conduct its trial.
What? The main Pfizer trial involved 43,448 participants in multiple countries.

The group on the right can also include the vaccinated, look at Israel, Seychelles, UK, Iceland and Gibraltar.
Greetings from the UK, where 88.2% of those eligible to be vaccinated (16+) are vaccinated, with the chart below showing our second and third waves, with the difference between the two being our vaccine rollout.

E68r_KiXMAgEE6y.jpeg

It's terms of some vaccinated people still ending up in hospital, it's just the fact that we're so highly vaccinated, combined with how the vaccines are really effective, but not perfect, that makes it an inevitability. Like how almost everyone who dies in a car accident was wearing a seatbelt, isn't evidence that seatbelts don't massively reduce the number of people who are seriously injured or killed, instead that they're overwhelmingly commonly worn, but not magic.

Stop spreading FUD and read up on waning antibodies and ADE. It does not matter if you are injected people are carrying the same level of viral load and spreading it while also getting sick, hospitalized and dying.
Aside from how antibody levels declining was expected, fortunately they aren't the only part of our immune response, and the evidence shows that there's still a lot of t and b-cells left over as well.

In terms of ADE, how about you read up on how there is no sign of ADE with these vaccines, all the evidence says the opposite.

Well documented, you mean like Pfizer tainted the study groups by offering them the injection after the trials which was designed for 2 years. Only a few decided not to get injected after and it’s not enough data to make any conclusions.
Them unblinding participants (telling people who got the placebo and who didn't) after the phase 3 results were published, and offering those in the placebo group the real thing, does not "taint" the study group, nor invalidate any of the study results in any way. Furthermore, it would have been a violation of medical ethics for them to not do so once the vaccine was authorised, and would have been utterly impractical as well, as many/most participants would have simply quit the study and gotten vaccinated regardless.

This is why the vaccine study that I'm in, which started after vaccines had been authorised, is comparing the new one to an existing one, as it'd have been unethical to make it placebo controlled, and incredibly difficult to get participants to sign up for at this point if it had been.
 
Last edited:
In a modern country, you are forcefully taken in foreign substances all the time. Mostly without a clue what it is as opposed to vaccines that are extremely well documented.
Are you referring to the air one breathes? Food perhaps? Most modern countries have reports on air quality and one can choose ways to control the air they breathe, via home/office purifiers, or moving. Food? Folks have the right to grow and/or purchase organic. It's actually pretty easy to get an idea of what you're taking in, should you choose to do so.
 
That article claims “boost immune response” and studies are required to see if it’s safe and effective it also has a published date of June 9th, 2021. No long term studies or trials, no mention of waning antibodies and how long and concentration of neutralizing antibodies.
 
That article claims “boost immune response” and studies are required to see if it’s safe and effective it also has a published date of June 9th, 2021. No long term studies or trials, no mention of waning antibodies and how long and concentration of neutralizing antibodies.
You said no studies. You were wrong.

”Canada and several European countries are now recommending a different vaccine for the second dose in some patients. Early data suggest the approach, born of necessity, may actually be beneficial.”

There’s also an uncontrolled study going on in Canada and several European countires, and I’ve heard nothing so far of widespread disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _mdavenport and hop
You said no studies. You were wrong.

”Canada and several European countries are now recommending a different vaccine for the second dose in some patients. Early data suggest the approach, born of necessity, may actually be beneficial.”

There’s also an uncontrolled study going on in Canada and several European countires, and I’ve heard nothing so far of widespread disaster.
Is there a reason why WHO is against mixing vaccines and has the US officially supported such measures. It also depends on when the personal friend of the poster received the recommendation to mix vaccines from their doctor.
 
You said no studies. You were wrong.

Indeed, we definitely do have studies already completed showing this works well, and it fits with what's been done historically with other vaccines too:

1 2 3 4

Plus we've got more studies being done as I type, science is awesome. It's also going to be really interesting to see the results of COV-Boost, partly because they're trying so many different options for boosters, including the vaccine that I'm in the phase 3 trial for, and a bunch of others, and even trying half doses for some of them as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
Perhaps because human beings should possess the right to not be forced to have foreign substances injected into their bodies for fear of losing their jobs. Educate > Debate > Freedom of choice

The only way to protect people from forced exposure to a foreign pathogen is for those around them to step up and get vaccinated. We’re being forced to interact with one foreign substance or another— one that science tells us is high risk and contagious or another that science tells us is low risk and protects us and those around us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icerabbit and hop

The grammar is so broken on that post and article that I can’t tell what it means. That’s probably evidence of the quality of the source.

[Edit:]Looks like my instincts were right:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/youtube-rumble-vaccine-misinformation.html
https://www.wired.com/story/rumble-sends-viewers-tumbling-toward-misinformation/
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: tbayrgs and hop
The grammar is so broken on that post and article that I can’t tell what it means. That’s probably evidence of the quality of the source.
Yeah, plus I don't really get why what Nancy Pelosi might have said last year, matters here? I mean unless I missed a load of people here pledging undying loyalty to going along with what she might have said in 2020, how is it relevant?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.