This is great to hear in the sense that they are continuing to look for the best practices and the data set must be enormous. With some time, it should just get better and better.

I would assume that the same will hold true for younger people with delayed doses. Very good news for Canada as we will likely have ~12 week delay in doses.

Was originally scheduled for 16 weeks but we are speeding up and should be able to do it in 12.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

If they had actually done long-term studies in advance, a lot of this would have been known. If the positive is unknown, so is the negative. 28 otherwise healthy people in Canada have died as a result of taking the vaccine and those healthy people had a very low risk of dying from Covid.

My wife and daughter are very hesitant to take a vaccine. We lived in the Philippines a few years ago when they introduced the Dengvaxia vaccine (to prevent Dengue fever) and administered it to 800,000 school children between ages 9-10. The drug was made by a company in France and I was there and heard nothing about how proven the drug was and how it would save lives and the drug company was only there to save lives. 14 children aged 9-10 died from the vaccine. These kids were perfectly healthy with a very low risk of getting dengue and they died. There were no long term studies on that vaccine either.

I think the mad rush to get a vaccine is simply the constant fear message we've been hearing for the last 14 months and I wish there would be more open discussions of the pros/cons of the vaccine and long term effects but anyone voicing an opinion is immediately shut down (just watch the reaction to this post). The shutting down of anyone who raises questions or concerns is the most troubling thing of this entire epidemic. It goes against all science principles and people seem to have no problem with it.

People talk about percentages and dismiss the side effects. They will say only 14 children died out of 800,000 so the vaccine is safe but those children were not sick and would not have died without the vaccine and if you are the parent of one of them (we know the parents of one child) it is no comfort to tell them the statistics.

Where are you seeing this information?

Are you saying they should have done long-term studies on COVID-19 vaccines, when the virus itself was first identified at the end of 2019 and entered the first vaccine trials early in 2020? How would they have done that?

Wrong.

28 people have developed VITT.

4 have died.

https://www.cbc.ca/...lood-clots-1.6025750

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

He's propagating anti-vax talking points again.

This is the information I see for Canada. (source)





So they've classified one person as having "died from taking the vaccine" so far. Could go up, though. But Sanuk is just cheerleading for vaccine-linked deaths because he's an anti-vaxxer. Maybe he just added 25+1+2?

Edit: Ah, BleP's slightly newer info has it up to 4 now.

Every time someone trots out this pathetic reason to not get a vaccine I know they aren't using even a sliver of critical thinking skills.

Also goes out of the way to avoid acknowledging the altruistic rationale for vaccine use. (reducing the vast reservoir of virus among young people who tend to mix widely amongst populations to help prevent older or less healthy people from dying or getting really sick). For whatever reason anti-vaxxers always pose the decision as purely a personal decision and in terms of purely personal risks.

The reaction to this post is because you're "facts" are incorrect. If you posted accurate information you might be able to engage in a real discussion.

Are there risks from getting any vaccine? Yes, no one is denying that. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? No.

In other words... they are selfish.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Some of them. But Sanuk's history indicates he's generally a great person and not selfish. He just absolutely refuses to acknowledge arguments *for* getting vaccinated while exaggerating the arguments against.

To me, this is the key in every discussion I've been in. From Sanuk: "If the positive is unknown, so is the negative."


But then...


On Covid: Even if you are young and healthy, we don't completely know what the long-term consequences of Covid are so you should do everything you can not to get it.


On the Vaccine: Even if you are young and healthy, we don't completely know what the long-term consequences of the vaccine are, but still take it because Covid.

Said another way, why do we assume all the science evolution around the vaccine will be positive?

Because we have decades of knowledge regarding vaccines and their effects. Are these ones different? Sure. But we have enough knowledge to believe that they won't be harmful for us.

We absolutely know that COVID has long term effects. Some people have lung damage that they will live with for the rest of their lives.

Sanuk wants us to ignore that and focus on the possibility that vaccines might have some long term effect even though all of our decades of study tell us that they likely won't.

That is asinine.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

We don't. Or I don't.

It's conceivable there could be some negative long term effect with some mechanism that no one predicted.

The problem I have is irrational arguments that manufacture possible negative effects out of thin air. For example Sanuk has claimed that young people shouldn't get the vaccine because "they need to develop their immune system."

This implies that he thinks the COVID vaccines have some kind of long-term immunosuppressive effect. Or maybe he means that they should get full COVID young to be better protected from it when older. But when pressed on precisely what he means by this, it's complete silence. And to my knowledge there's no existing evidence that either COVID vaccines are immunosuppressive or that getting full COVID provides stronger long-term protection than a vaccine.

So making up stuff on the one hand while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the now-very-well-documented short-term effects that COVID vaccines are actively preventing vast human suffering...it gets tiresome.

Simply BRILLIANT.
Let's wait 5 years shall we to collect data. And another 10 or 20 million dead across the world before then will be perfectly OK.
Have you received your Nobel prize for science yet with that thinking ?

I also don't understand the need to drag out rare blood clots as a deterrent for women to be vaccinated. It's far more "dangerous" to take birth control pills or actually be pregnant in terms of blood clots. Do you hear a lot of women afraid to get pregnant because of blood clots?

And if you are going to go on and blood clot deaths don’t confuse blood clot cases and blood clot deaths.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?