Coronavirus

Vaccines Don't Save Lives. Vaccinations Save Lives.

Especially if the COVID-19 inoculations are deployed speedily and accepted widely.

|

In less than a year since the COVID-19 pandemic began, several safe and effective vaccines against the coronavirus are apparently on track to be approved and made available later this month. This spectacular achievement is in large part due to the federal government's Operation Warp Speed program that incentivized pharmaceutical companies to rapidly develop and deploy these vaccines. Operation Warp Speed's chief science adviser Moncef Slaoui told The Washington Post this morning that he expects there will be enough COVID-19 vaccine to immunize every American by June 2021. Vice President Mike Pence said yesterday that vaccine distribution could begin during the week of December 14.

But as Emory University infectious disease researcher Walter Orenstein reminds us, "Vaccines do not save lives. Vaccinations save lives." The question of just how many infections, hospitalizations, and lives lost could be averted by the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign is at the heart of a new modeling study in Health Affairs by a team of Harvard and Yale researchers led by infectious disease physician Rochelle Walensky.

It's great to have highly effective vaccines, but as the researchers observe, "How well a vaccine program 'works' will also depend on how quickly it can be manufactured, how efficiently it can be distributed to locations in greatest need, how persuasive health messaging can be in promoting public acceptance, and how consistently the public can adhere to the many complementary prevention strategies (e.g., masks, hand-washing, distancing) to limit the spread of the virus."

To get at the question of how well the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine campaign might work, the researchers set up a heavily caveated model that seeks to take into account the relative efficacy of vaccines (25, 50, 75, and 90 percent) that are preventive, or severity reducing (disease modifying), or a composite of both. The model also takes into consideration the pace (speed of deployment) and coverage (extent of vaccine uptake) as they interact with various epidemic severity scenarios. The researchers also consider various lag times for the vaccines to become fully effective. For simplicity the simulation uses a population of 100,000 people.

In their base case, the pace is 0.5 percent of the population is vaccinated daily and they assumed an eventual coverage of 50 percent of the population. They defined three different epidemic severity scenarios based on basic reproduction numbers, that is, the average number of people to which an infected person will transmit the virus, ranging from a best case of 1.5 to a baseline case of 1.8 to a worst case of 2.1 people. In the best case scenario, people are keeping the basic reproduction number lower by adhering to social distancing, mask wearing, and other preventive practices. The higher number is associated with greater crowding indoors as the weather grows colder. They also sketch out a scenario in which the basic reproduction number is 1.2 cases per infection. As it happens, that appears to be close to the current nationwide level.

Their baseline scenario assumes an epidemic basic reproduction number of 1.8. With no vaccinations, more than 61,000 people out the population of 100,000 would become infected within six months. Cumulative deaths would reach 2,725 and hospitalizations would peak at 1,780 people. The researchers then assume that 50 percent of people are inoculated with a composite vaccine that is 50 percent effective after 42 days at preventing—as well as reducing—disease severity. In that case, total infections drop to around 37,000 (32,000 unvaccinated and 5,000 vaccinated). Cumulative deaths among the unvaccinated fall to 1,430 and to only 16 for those who are vaccinated. Peak hospitalization drops to 962 people.

Keep firmly in mind that these calculations are not predictions about what will actually happen in the coming months. They are designed to provide some insight on how the interaction of the speed of deployment, vaccine uptake, and the severity of the epidemic could affect the trajectory a vaccination campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a scenario with a six month time horizon (say, by this June) in which the basic reproduction number is 1.5, the vaccine is 90 percent effective, 1 percent of the population is vaccinated daily, and 90 percent are eventually vaccinated, infections are cut by more than 90 percent below what they would have been without a vaccine.

If the epidemic is more severe, with a basic reproduction number of 2.1, then infections over six months in that scenario are only reduced by a little over 60 percent. The basic reproduction number for the COVID-19 pandemic now depends largely on the actions we choose to take—avoiding crowded indoor spaces, mask wearing, and proper hygiene—to slow the trajectory of the pandemic for the next several months as the vaccines are rolled out. While the highly effective vaccines that appear to be in the pipeline are critical to ending the pandemic, the researchers point out, "the benefits of a vaccine will decline substantially in the event of manufacturing or deployment delays, significant vaccine hesitancy, or greater epidemic severity."

With respect to vaccine deployment, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified last September in a Senate hearing that it would take about $6 billion to adequately fund the speedy distribution of the coronavirus vaccines. A bipartisan $908 billion stimulus plan proposed today in Congress would authorize $16 billion in health care funding that would allocate some spending for coronavirus testing and tracing and vaccine distribution.

Extensive vaccine hesitancy would stymie the development of real herd immunity to the coronavirus. Most researchers now believe that achieving the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 would require that close to 60 to 70 percent of the population will have to have been infected or vaccinated. The good news is that a poll released in early November by the STAT biomedical research newsletter and the Harris Poll reported that 63 percent of Americans responded that they would get inoculated if the COVID-19 vaccines were 90 percent effective. In clinical trials, the Moderna and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are more than 90 percent effective in preventing infections. My hope is that as vaccine-hesitant Americans see most of their neighbors getting inoculated, that they too will choose to take the responsibility to protect themselves and vulnerable others from the COVID-19 scourge.

Ultimately, this modeling exercise suggests that millions of infections, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, and tens of thousands of deaths can be averted in the coming six months if we keep the COVID-19 epidemic relatively under control and persuade our neighbors to take advantage of this amazing biomedical achievement.

NEXT: Biden’s Natsec Team Is Conventional in Style—and, Unfortunately, Policy

Coronavirus Vaccines Epidemiology Biotechnology

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

112 responses to “Vaccines Don't Save Lives. Vaccinations Save Lives.

  1. Now now, Mr. Bailey.
    There was that one model about coronavirus from January from the UK that was totally and completely wrong. Therefore all models everywhere are baloney and I refuse to believe a word of it.

    1. I am so happy to see that it didn’t take you long to start sharing your medical opinions again after you were embarrassingly wrong about the flu and encephalitis. Most people would learn something and be more circumspect but that’s cowardice!

      Jeffstrong!

      1. Fuck off.

        1. I too like to impugn the intellect of other people after I was loudly wrong about something that is easily researched!

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regulaer offices job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. Not just one model from the UK; all the models from all over the world.

    3. That’s pretty obtuse of you. Why throw out all the models because of 1 wrong model? I’m starting to see why they give you a hard time. Also I’m pretty sure it’s Dr. Bailey.

    4. Also I’m sorry but who says baloney, what are you like 80 years old and obsessed with food?

      1. Real grumpy old men say ‘crock of shit’.

      2. No. He is fucking obese and loves food.

      3. I believe the cool kids are using the term ‘malarkey’ these days.

    5. God damn youre dumb.

      All models are wrong. Some are useful.

      Unvalidated models are only good for first order anytime that ones assumptions are plausible. Beyond that they have little to no predictive value. Once a model can be validated against data, preferably predictive, then they can be useful in some regards.

    6. Remind me which model was least wrong.

    7. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have mqr earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do …….. Visit Here

  2. So we are cheering on a massive new government program now.

    1. I think getting everyone possible vaccinated asap might save your tax dollars in the long term sir.

      1. So would not locking shit down in the first place. Is this the bandaid for after they break your arm?

      2. Yup. Not to mention saving lives.

        1. And I’ll bet you think government expenditures are ‘investments’, too, right?

        2. Lockdowns maximized C19 deaths and killed many more according to the Excess Mortality data.

      3. “I think getting everyone possible vaccinated asap might save your tax dollars in the long term sir.”

        And I’ll bet you think government expenditures are ‘investments’, too, right?

    2. I thought mass testing was going to save our asses?

      1. The Covid-19 vaccinations will invariably save lives, along with Mass testing. One must bear in mind, however, that a person who’s infected with the Covid-19 virus can also be asymptomatic.

        1. “The Covid-19 vaccinations will invariably save lives, along with Mass testing…”

          Lefty assertions =/= arguments or evidence.

      2. Well before that, our asses were supposed to be saved by “two weeks to flatten the curve”! But then Fauci changed his mind.

    3. Of course we are. That’s what the “libertarians” at Reason are into these days.

    4. You know the old adage about government breaking both your legs and then giving you a crutch?

      Now imagine that except it only breaks the legs of 0.06% of the population.

      Now imagine it’s largely the 0.06% of the population that has one foot in the grave anyway.

      Spending debt the zoomers won’t be able to pay off in their lifetimes to buy more boomers a handful of extra years. Maybe. I would certainly hesitate to use the word ‘saviors’.

  3. Hey dipshit, any comment on the US using too high a PCR replication rate, so when Biden has it lowered to make himself look better you might, you know, do your fucking job and catch that?

    In newly surfaced July interview, Fauci warns that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus
    Over-sensitive tests can just pick up “dead nucleotides” rather than live virus, he said.
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/newly-surfaced-video-july-fauci-tests-dead-virus

    Joining the hosts of This Week in Virology in July, Fauci directly responded to a question about COVID-19 testing, specifically how patients with positive tests might determine whether or not they are actually infectious and need to quarantine.

    “What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard,” Fauci said, is that “if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule.”

    “It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians,” he continued, when “somebody comes in, and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like [a] 37 cycle threshold, but you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle.”

    “So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”

    …High-threshold tests appear to be widely in use in the United States. A review by the New York Times in August found that, of just one batch of positive tests from New York, Massachusetts and Nevada, “up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.”

    Individual test manufacturers and labs, rather than infectious disease authorities, are generally in charge of setting the cycle threshold of a COVID-19 test. “Most PCR assays for infectious diseases have Ct cutoffs in the range of 35-40,” the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services states in a COVID-19 PCR informational document.

      1. https://pjmedia.com/columns/stacey-lennox/2020/10/05/why-is-fauci-wringing-his-hands-over-covid-cases-detected-by-prc-tests-n1004333

        Taiwan, which has been praised for its response to the virus, uses a cycle threshold of under 32 to diagnose patients likely to become ill and infectious.

        1. Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review
          https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4

          A cut-off RT-PCR Ct > 30 was associated with non-infectious samples. One study that analysed the NSP, N and E gene fragments of the PCR result reported different cut-off thresholds depending on the gene fragment analysed. The duration of RNA shedding detected by PCR was far longer compared to detection of live culture. Six out of eight studies reported RNA shedding for longer than 14 days. Yet, infectivity declines after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. A very small proportion of people re-testing positive after hospital discharge or with high Ct are likely to be infectious. Conclusion Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patient factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level. A binary Yes / No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with possible segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.

          1. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/28/commentary/japan-commentary/japans-pragmatic-approach-covid-19-testing/

            In addition, given that there are evidently a significant proportion of asymptomatic cases among the infected, it does not necessarily make sense to attempt to ascertain the prevalence of infection by PCR. In fact, in other countries, PCR testing alone turned out not to be sufficient to determine the full extent of the epidemic in the population, and antibody testing is now being considered to determine the actual status of the epidemic.

            Although the accuracy of antibody testing remains questionable so far, the actual number of cases appears to be several times to several dozen times higher than that captured by PCR, a result which is being found not only in Japan but also in other countries. The preliminary findings of the prevalence of COVID-19 detected by antibody testing were at around 0.6 percent in Japan, but this figure does not deviate significantly from that of other countries. It is true that in some cases there was a delay in conducting tests even when physicians requested PCR testing for their patients. Therefore, in preparation for a potential second wave of COVID-19, testing capacity is being strengthened so that it can be done without any delay when physicians determine that testing is necessary.

            Critics also say that the low number of PCR tests may lead to overlooking some of the actual deaths from COVID-19. However, given Japan’s universal health care system, PCR testing is undertaken for almost all cases of severe pneumonia that result in death. Furthermore, almost all health care facilities perform a CT scan when they suspect COVID-19, based on nationally shared criteria in line with World Health Organization recommendations.

            1. I appreciate the links and info, Ra.

    1. New Jersey helpfully provides a PCR case tracker and a lab-confirmed case tracker. Take a wild guess as to which one is tracking hospitalizations and which would severely overestimating them.

      1. Links?

        1. https://arcg.is/1HqbXb

          “Cases and Trends” tab has the PCR data. “Cases and Mortality Summaries” has lab-confirmed. Growth in the latter tracks pretty consistently with the statewide hospital census since flu season started (though reporting on it lags).

          PCR data in NJ is basically useless as a prediction tool.

      2. This is copypasta. Saw the same comment earlier with the same grammatical error.

      3. Go back to the borderlands, where you belong.

        1. HIGH FIVES!

    2. “What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard,” Fauci said, is that “if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule.”

      Any non-government, non-academic scientist who used that many weasel words would be laughed out of the building. This guy continues to prove why we need working woodchippers at government agencies.

  4. shouldn’t we have some kind of I dunno agency over whether needles pierce our skin for reasons?

    1. SCIENCE DENIER!!!!

      1. Ron’s science and my science are incompatible.

        1. When science and anti-science collide, does it produce energy?

          1. we’ll have to see whether the nation in general gained or lost weight in 2020 …

          2. No; just an echo – – – – –

    2. That agency is the CDC.

  5. I will accept no Trump Vaccine.

    1. I can’t tell if you’ve devolved into OBL or mean it, but you’ve been entertaining lately either way.

    2. What about a Harris vaccine?

      1. “VD is nothing to clap about” -Willie Brown

      2. With special guest ‘The Joe Biden Project’

    3. Newsom wouldn’t either, but he’s welcoming the new Biden vaccine.

    4. Not if it’s distributed by Biden.

  6. OK, Ron, you’ve done your part, vaccines are great. Now how about looking into the effects of the lockdowns and all of the lives it has shortened and will continue to shorten. I know you are good at that kind of stuff. Your book “The End Of Doom” did a great job of that sort of thing. Now let’s see some good old cost/benefit analysis of the current authoritarian policies being forced on all of us.

    1. But the French are smart, unlike science denying Jesus freak Americans

      We all break lockdown in France
      Swerving the Covid rules has become the new national sport
      https://unherd.com/2020/11/how-the-french-cheat-at-lockdown/

      Avoiding the Covid rules has, says Sud Ouest, become “le nouveau sport national”. In such small phrases one understands why the French were occupied by the Nazis 1940-1944, but never conquered by them. The French are the French.

      1. Anyway, the Parisians have fled their diseased city for a place with not a single case. And they have dumped their dogs.

        The French hold the European record for abandoning dogs (about 100,000 canines a year), the peak times being holidays, because no one wants to pay for kennels.

        Ok, I hate the French now.

    2. “…Now how about looking into the effects of the lockdowns and all of the lives it has shortened and will continue to shorten. I know you are good at that kind of stuff…”

      How about the entire Reason editorial staff ‘starting’ to look into such issues along about February 2020?
      Assuming they are effective, vaccines are really good, but there is no denying the lockdowns are a disaster, and needed attention long ago.

      1. Yeah, it’s disgraceful. That should have been Ron’s focus all along. There are plenty of people out there pushing the official narrative. Whether or not you buy that narrative, there are other things that need investigating.
        Anyone supporting lockdowns at this point is stupid or evil or hopelessly ignorant.

      1. Yeah, that’s a good take. I’ve been reading a lot of stuff like this. It is just shocking how terrible the supposed science is in all this.

  7. A successful vaccine using the Warp Speed protocols is going to be very dangerous if it causes people to question whether or not we really need all of the normal FDA regulatory precautions at all and thereby undermine our faith in Big Brother Government. This is why I have my fingers crossed that this vaccine fails spectacularly and winds up causing fatal ass cancer to half the people who take it, nothing could be worse than people questioning their betters in government, their wisdom and compassion and their benevolence. A failure of this vaccine will provide a complete vindication of the FDA – we need dozens of extremely expensive studies conducted over many years to ascertain the safety and efficacy of new drugs and you can’t be trusted to just go trying new shit all on your own.

    1. If it works, it will be the Biden Vaccine.
      If it fails it will be the Trump Vaccine.

      1. The Trump vaccine is bleach and light bulbs from what I hear.

        1. With a hydroxychloroquine chaser.

      2. How about we give credit to the scientists who worked their asses off to make it?

    2. don’t hope for that, we’ll be locked down forever.
      hope it works and they speed up the normal process.

    3. The FDA didn’t cut corners. This shit could’ve been ready six months ago without the FDA. They delayed it by insisting on safety and efficacy trials.

      The only thing Warp Speed accomplished was funding the manufacturing and distribution arms of the vaccines, to ensure they would be ready for delivery after FDA approval.

      Remember, Russia and China had vaccines six months ago because they didn’t spend time testing for safety. Because they don’t give two fucks about their people.

      An amusing tangent: The libertarian way would’ve actually been slower than the FDA. The free market incentivizes more rigid, slower safety protocols, by removing legal protection for pharmaceutical products that harm patients.

  8. They may get a vaccine for COVID-19, but there are so many other pathogens out there. It isn’t safe until there is a vaccine for all of them.

  9. No end to lockdown or “cloth face coverings” until we eliminate the common cold !!!

    1. I joined the Conformity but only for Christmas I got matching masks for my brother & his wife w/a pic of their dog on them.

      1. I want to make a “Fuck Off Slaver” series. Maybe one that says “PRISONER” on it too.

        1. In.

          my only problem with antagonarchist statments on a mask is I *really* hate the masks … I’ve been all bandana … my brother got me what would normally be a pretty cool phish mask but I just can’t wear it.

        2. Make a racy series that shows lots of skin covering only the minimum required.

          1. I keep thinking someone will do the obvious and make masks out of 21 year old super model’s dirty panties. I know I’d be a lot more enthusiastic about compliance.

  10. 63 percent of Americans responded that they would get inoculated if the COVID-19 vaccines were 90 percent effective.

    Question really is what % of Americans will get the second dose of the vaccine considering that the side effects of the vaccines are significant. Idk the effectiveness % after one dose v after both doses.

    1. I believe it was around 60% for a single dose. The report I listened to where they interviewed a test subject said the reaction to the first dose was 24 hours of aches and pains and the second dose was 24 hours of don’t get out of bed.

      1. So, worse than the effects of the disease for most people, it sounds like.

        1. Wait. What? Moderna’s has soreness at the injection site, some muscle aches, and maybe a fever. I’ve never heard the 24 hours in bed thing.

          1. He definitely said ‘don’t plan to go to work after getting the second dose’. I don’t remember which vaccine he was testing.

      2. Way worse than all those asymptomatic symptoms.

    2. “Question really is what % of Americans will get the second dose of the vaccine considering that the side effects of the vaccines are significant. Idk the effectiveness % after one dose v after both doses.”

      No, the question really is when will the cowardly piece of lefty shit jam his PANIC flag up his and sit on it.

    3. What they really need to ask is what % will take the vaccine if Biden is in charge of distribution versus Trump. Considering Trump has proven to be far more honest than Biden, I think they’re afraid to poll that one.

      1. What are you sniffing? Trump could not be honest to save his own life, he is allergic to telling the truth. He even lies at odd times where there is zero reason to lie.

        1. Let’s talk about honesty, Molly. How many times did YOU vote? (mic drop)

  11. Who’s to say that vaccinations work? A look at data shows that ALL these dread diseases did not affect 99.9% of the population BEFORE the vaccine for that disease was made available to the public.
    “I got the flu vaccine and I didn’t get the flu!” So what does that mean? Does it mean that the vaccine worked, or simply that “I didn’t get the flu?”
    I haven’t had any vaccinations in my life. I’m 68. I didn’t vaccinate any of my children. We are all very healthy. Last time I got the flu (or flu like disease) was 15 years ago. I probably got the dreaded covid back in March (I had several of the symptoms), but I didn’t get tested. My daughter-in-law had symptoms (loss of sense of taste and smell) in June. My daughter had symptoms (fever loss of sense of taste) a couple weeks ago.
    We had 15 people over for Thanksgiving dinner. The weekend before that we had 13 people together for a granddaughter’s 21st birthday (guests ages ranged from 6 to 89). The week before that another 15 people for another granddaughter’s sixth birthday.
    I will not allow anyone to jab me with ANY “vaccine”. I’ll take my chances.

    1. Good comment. We’ve had 7 people in our extended family become infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID19. All fully-recovered, although, my 69 year-old brother-in-law who is diabetic and obese was hospitalized for three days. Even he fully-recovered and is back at work. COVID19 amounts to a severe cold that can cause pneumonia, hospitalizes people with compromised immune systems / lungs and kills a tiny fragment of mostly older, sick folks. The hysteria and panic that accompanies COVID19 is more a reflection of highly-urbanized, totally-dependent people’s angst and fear that actual danger.

  12. Kind of glossed over the “safe and” part of “safe and effective”.

    Could vaccines always have been rolled out in 10 months, and still be safe? The usual approval period has been closer to 4 years.

    Either the old system was too bureaucratic and risk averse (most likely), or the new system is taking a few shortcuts with your safety, or both.

  13. I hope it works but I remain skeptical. It seems unlikely we were able to produce a vaccine against coronavirus in less than a year when we have tried and failed for the last hundred years. All this with coronavirus costing the livestock industry bigly every year. Meanwhile, we have not been able to vaccinate against RSV and that virus doesnt mutate like corona.

    1. Well, these are all mRNA vaccines, which are new and were mostly still in the lab before this virus hit. They also use lipid nanoparticles to deliver them. https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/01/how-nanotechnology-helps-mrna-covid19-vaccines-work/

      So it’s basically new technology. That’s why these work where others have failed.

      1. mRNA is just another way to get antigen presenting cells (which are hard to transfect, we use electroporation) to expresses viral proteins. You can achive the same result using attenuated virus like we have been doing for a century. With corona the problem is the immune reponse not presentation by APCs. So I dont see how the mRNA will be better. And given the vaccine needs to kept at -80 to keep from breaking down, I dont know it can survive in the RNase soup that is your blood stream long enough to be useful.

      2. That’s why these might work where others have failed.

      3. Would you buy a car that was designed and built in 8 – 10 months?

        1. Would you use a car that your government stole your money and paid to have built in 8-10 months?

  14. Some of the numbers that came out of the model don’t seem right. I’m struck by “With no vaccinations, more than 61,000 people out the population of 100,000 would become infected within six months. Cumulative deaths would reach 2,725…” 2,725/61,000 would suggest an infection fatality rate of 4–5%, whereas the consensus among researchers seems to be more on the order of 0.5%. We’d expect the IFR to rise if our hospital capacity were exceeded, but by that much?

    1. They weren’t using this particular virus for their model. Or any particular virus. Nor these particular vaccine candidates. It was more of a thought experiment about what could happen under various hypothetical scenarios.

      It would be informative to see how their model plays out if you use the various ranges people have used for Covid-19 and the reported effectiveness and other characteristics of these two vaccine candidates. But that isn’t apparently what they were specifically trying to do here.

  15. There are no vaccinations without vaccines.

    1. Alcohol doesn’t get your drunk. Drinking it does!

  16. Hey, that’s great news! I’ll just ask my doctor to vaccinate me with a little saline solution!

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

  17. In some cases it seems like there has been a void in our lives; everybody feels it. Griping is one thing that everybody does; individuals don’t know to live with it, or they not in any event, for a subsequent attempt to finish those voids in their lives. Discussing Benedict Cumberbatch, this person satisfied all his longings he set forward. Indeed, who doesn’t have a clue about the best secret solver Sherlock Holmes or may even know him as the Dr. Stranger. The more we talk about him, the more it gets fascinating. Thus, in this article, you will be takinghttps://celebsgraphy.com/benedict-cumberbatch/ a gander at the total Biography of Benedict Cumberbatch.

  18. YOU CAN TAKE YOUR VACCINE, AND SHOVE IT!

    …because Democrats under a Biden administration will be overseeing the distribution. You fraudsters can’t be trusted. Not in election integrity, and not in anything you want to inject into my veins.

    I’d be more open to it if Trump ran the distribution, but not a chance in hell I’d trust you slimy fucks.

    1. Huh? It’s the same vaccine whoever is president. I wouldn’t trust Trump more than anyone for advice on whether to take a vaccine or not.
      I’m not going to rush to take it because it’s new and fairly untested and it sounds like the side effects are likely to be worse than what I’m likely to get from the virus.

      1. “It’s the same vaccine whoever is president.”

        Most of the covid vaccines have very delicate handling procedures and if they are allowed to thaw during transport, they could cause serious health problems. I’m already anticipating supply chain issues under Biden for things like toilet paper. And if the Dems can screw that up, they can certainly screw up something as delicate as the vaccine.

        So, NO THANK YOU.

  19. What are the long term effects of mRNA vaccines?

    What is the liability of vaccine manufacturers?

    1. “What is the liability of vaccine manufacturers?”

      ZERO.

      I believe you can file a claim with the federal government to receive a pittance for any injuries, but the manufacturers are fully indemnified and cannot be sued.

      That makes you feel all warm and comfortable about it, now doesn’t it?

  20. What complete and utter nonsense. You can never prove that vaccines or vaccinations save ANY lives. Why? Because you cannot prove that any person who did not get a vaccination will die from not getting it. They may die (for any number of reasons) , but there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that getting vaccinated would have saved their life. it is all guesswork and assumptions…neither I want to be any part of.

    As far as vaccines go, when pharma was given total immunity in the 1980’s from any adverse effects generated from their toxic poisons, that tells me that the risks are far beyond anything I would ever accept. NO THANKS. These new vaccines are a farce as is the fake pandemic…is there anyone in this country we can absolutely trust to tell us exactly what is in any of these vaccines and exactly how they work and what they are supposed to do to our bodies and immune systems? NO! Not one trusted soul and that is because Gates, Fauci and pharma do not want their horrendous secrets to be known.

    I value my immune system greatly and will not subject it to being altered and destroyed by pharma vaccines and poisons. That is the purpose of these vaccines…to wreck your immune system and provide the medical mafia with a steady stream of diseased patients into eternity. Who will prove otherwise? It would take decades to know the long term affects of these drugs.

    Like the cancer drugs created over the last 20 years, over 100 of them, they have effectively extended the life span of cancer patients by less than 3 months. $10’s of billions of dollars wasted on useless research only designed to sell more drugs…not cure disease. Ditto vaccines.

    1. You are an idiot

    2. Kudos to you, ValVerde, for refusing to kowtow to the medical tyrants.

  21. I will not take this vaccine.

  22. If vaccination will save your life, then you have no problem with me choosing NOT to vaccinate. If it can’t save your life, they why would you advocate pushing it on mine, with all the myriad side-effects that it carries? Mandatory vaccinations, like your Elizabeth Nolan Brown apparently advocates, are nothing more noble than Vaccination Rapes.
    The below article demonstrates why I no longer bother reading the libertarian-light publication of Reason:
    https://libertyconservativenews.com/koch-funded-fake-libertarians-attack-rep-thomas-massie-for-opposing-mandatory-vaccines/

Comments are closed.