People who have had severe reactions to previous vaccines are advised to discuss their options with their doctor/allergists. Most will still be able to get one of the vaccines, but there are some who will be advised not to.
According to the CDC and top cancer doctors and researchers, most cancer patients are advised to get the vaccine. There are some who will be advised by their oncologists to avoid or delay the shot.
In fairness, I think you are minimizing their sincerely held religious beliefs. Every one of the applicants understood that s/he may be jeopardizing their employment and livelihood, and it would be far easier to just get the shot and be done with the issue. They had to agree to other burdensome accommodations, including frequent testing at their own expense and mask wearing.
I do not necessarily share their beliefs that God will protect them, nor have I had a personal conversation with the Almighty, but I do understand that many faiths encompass such ideas and there are many adherents. The government requires that we presume their sincerity in the request, and given that they accept burdensome accommodations, that seems fair.
I think most consider that a fundamental question to this entire thread. I believe that the vaccines have saved lives and hope that everyone without a medical reason gets vaccinated. I believe that most vaccine mandates are legal based on previous precedents. The part where I disagree with some on this thread is that I believe a person can choose to forgo the vaccine without even having a valid reason (but may have to deal with vaccine mandate consequences). I see people talk about public health and believe that compliance can be âforcedâ but we can only go so far to âcoerceâ someone to get vaccinated. I can see that some have been scarred by Covid-19, while others have not had to deal with any real consequences because of Covid-19 and wonder if that is part of the divide.
You are right that there are inconsistencies in the way that Covid-19 has been presented that have eroded the trust (I disagree with how those who were infected with Covid-19 and now have Natural immunity where once considered part of the overall âHerd Immunityâ solution, but if they are not currently vaccinated, have been treated as pariahs). If a person could receive an antibody test and have Covid-19 antibodies (from vaccination or Natural immunity), why are those 2 groups treated so differently? I know that some will point out that the vaccine is 2x as effective from one study, while a larger study in Israel had contradictory findings where natural immunity was stronger. The one thing agreed on is that recovering from Covid + vaccination gives the strongest protection. But throwing all unvaccinated people in the same bucket has always felt disingenuous when we need Herd Immunity and some of the unvaccinated are contributing to that goal from a previous Covid infection.
Historically, adverse effects of vaccines have shown themselves very quickly, usually in a matter of weeks or months. What childhood vaccines were pulled after appearing to be safe, then years later were shown to be causing long-term delayed adverse effects?
Given there are some very real reasons medical, personal, and religious why certain individuals are not getting vaccinated; with the current mandates (absent the workplace), how should those people live their lives? Should we as a society relegate them to their houses? Only going to work/home? Should they be required to wear a âscarlet letter,â or share their medical history as to why they cannot get vaccinated?
Iâm not saying there arenât people who have their sincere religious convictions, but there is a lot of room with such a broad policy for people who arenât quite as sincere or who are inconsistent in their application of those convictions.
There are workplaces that strictly enforce testing and mask wearing and there are those that donât. Iâm glad to hear that yours does since you mention that there are many people in your organization that have received religious/spiritual exemption.
I think most employers are willing to enforce the minimum the law requires. We arenât voluntarily going above that minimum, but we will meet the threshold, as will most.
this was pulled after being on the market for a year. Vaccines for children are very different than vaccines for adults. If I was a parent I would want to wait a bit before my child got the Covid vaccine and see . Very different than adults.
The most likely vaccine component in COVID-19 vaccines that people may have allergies to is polyethylene glycol (PEG). This is present in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The J&J vaccine does not have it, but does have a similar component polysorbate-80 (PS80).
Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC Appendix B near the bottom describes some situations of this nature. âNote: people with a contraindication to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a precaution to Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, and vice versa. See footnote for additional information on additional measures to take in these people.â
This may be what sorts out genuine religious or conscience objections from those who claim to have gotten religion just for the purpose of anti-vaccine.
Note that the Catholic church does say that âThose who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.â (In the same page, the Catholic church does say that it is acceptable to use the COVID-19 vaccines despite the fetal cells, but advocates for vaccines that do not have such a connection.)
That product is not an example of what Nrdsb4 asked because Rotashieldâs side effect that got it pulled from the market (intussusception) showed up in patients soon after the vaccine was administered. That is typical for vaccines, there arenât side effects that develop long after the vaccine is given, they happen soon after the treatment. Which is what nrdsb4 said.
The results of the investigations showed that RotaShieldÂź vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition. The risk of intussusception increased 20 to 30 times over the expected risk for children of this age group within 2 weeks following the first dose of RotaShieldÂź vaccine. The risk increased 3 to 7 times over the expected risk for this age group within two weeks after the second dose of RotaShieldÂź vaccine. There was no increase in the risk of intussusception following the third dose of RotaShieldÂź vaccine, or when three weeks had passed following any dose of the vaccine.
Okay, but the adverse effects were seen very quickly. It wasnât that the vaccine was on the market a year or more before any children began to react adversely to that vaccine.
I was actually asking whether or not there has been a vaccine that appeared very safe for a long period, then suddenly began to be connected to adverse effects that never showed up until a long time had passed.
That is the criticism we hear all the time about these vaccines. That we donât know âthe long term side effects.â I still know of no vaccine whose effects didnât show up pretty quickly. Billions of doses of Covid vaccines have been given over the last 18 months or so. Is there really a credible fear that years from now, people who were vaccinated with these shots are suddenly going to be experiencing dangerous effects from them?
I understand a parentâs reticence.
I think this is the first time MRNA vaccines have been used in humans?
All the states whose rules I know of have pretty stringent guidelines for homeschooling â you canât just keep 'em home with mom and call it good. In the end, âhomeschoolingâ tends to mean âI actually want to do some things at home and then send them to some subjects and activities with everyone else so they donât grow up weirdâ. But if vax is the gate for all that, too, my guess is that most who say no will in the end see that the kids are all right and get them the shot.
This has already been answered, probably repeatedly, above.
The vaxes have been around for nearly a year and have proven stupendously safe. The disease will rototill you on the inside. This sort of fingernail-biting is, again, saying âIâll pass on the house, probably has offgassing carpet, my family will figure it out under this bridge this winter.â
Do you really think anyone here believes people should be forced to wear a visible symbol that theyâre not vaccinated? Or that anyone should be forced to stay only in their homes?
People who are unvaccinated should wear a mask indoors and in close proximity to others and understand that there may be places they canât go and things they canât do (to protect themselves and other vulnerable populations). It seems like youâre trying to draw a line from these reasonable public health measures to more extreme or âevilâ outcomes.
mRNA vaccines were first used in humans in 2013 for a rabies vaccine study.
That JHU video is good and highlights the reasons why experts do not anticipate any long term side effects with MRNA vaccines:
1-MRNA is incredibly unstable and degrades quickly (thatâs why it has to stored at very cold temperatures)
2-Once the vaccine is injected the MRNA does itâs thing (watch the video) and then degrades within a day. Any remaining protein is gone within a week.
3-No MRNA ever enters the nucleus of any cell in the body (so how would long term side effects occur?)
4-There have never been vaccine side effects that showed up after 6 weeks post administration. That is why the FDA required the vaccine trials to follow patients for 8 weeks post injection. Some clinical trial participants were dosed over 16 months ago or so, with no evidence of side effects to date. And remember, these were very large clinical trials with 40K plus participants for each product.
Thanks for the info. So the rabies vaccines used now are mrna? Or was this just a limited study done in humans? The article did not mention whether this was phase I, II, or III clinical trial.
You might find this interesting. The tangled history of mRNA vaccines