Jump to content

Menu

The “vaccination divide” in the US


Quill
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I wrote upthread, I remember getting the MMR (I think) when I was in grad school because my mother couldn't find the records proving that I'd had it. IIRC there was an outbreak of the measles on campus. I don't remember it being a titre but again, it was a long time ago. 

I also remember getting a "measles shot" when I was about 9 years old and being told it was because the one I'd received as a baby wasn't strong enough. That was a LONG time ago so these are hazy memories. 

I was curious so I googled. 

Some vaccinated adults may not be protected against measles

I was born during what this article calls the "grey zone," the time period between when the development of the measles vaccine and the modern MMR vaccine. 

Perhaps this is "measles shot" I received in late elementary school? Interesting. I'll have to ask my mother what she remembers. I already know there are no records. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

If it goes down to having a much lower virulence, like the flu. In the current situation? Again,  apples, oranges.

Yes, and with flu we can vaccinate kids. With Covid, our kids under 12 don’t have the option.  There’s no “choice.”

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

As I wrote upthread, I remember getting the MMR (I think) when I was in grad school because my mother couldn't find the records proving that I'd had it. IIRC there was an outbreak of the measles on campus. I don't remember it being a titre but again, it was a long time ago. 

I also remember getting a "measles shot" when I was about 9 years old and being told it was because the one I'd received as a baby wasn't strong enough. That was a LONG time ago so these are hazy memories. 

I was curious so I googled. 

Some vaccinated adults may not be protected against measles

I was born during what this article calls the "grey zone," the time period between when the development of the measles vaccine and the modern MMR vaccine. 

Perhaps this is "measles shot" I received in late elementary school? Interesting. I'll have to ask my mother what she remembers. I already know there are no records. 

The earlier measles shot did require more boosters.  I remember getting an extra measles booster as an older child (probably close in age to when you did) because there was an outbreak.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Plum said:

There is no difference between mandating a vaccine that is FDA approved (in which case there are systems in place for injuries) and a EUA vaccine that has removed all liability?

FWIW, all of the proposed mandates I've seen so far, for federal employees and private businesses, have deadlines that are beyond the likely FDA approval date. Many have deadlines in October or even November, and the FDA is expected to grant full approval in early September.

Also, the case that was mentioned upthread, where the hospital won't allow any exemptions, is the exception — the federal government and the vast majority of businesses are allowing medical, and in some cases also religious, exemptions.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

The earlier measles shot did require more boosters.  I remember getting an extra measles booster as an older child (probably close in age to when you did) because there was an outbreak.

I had to get one before I got married, back in tbe olden days when they did blood tests for a marriage license.😂

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

FWIW, all of the proposed mandates I've seen so far, for federal employees and private businesses, have deadlines that are beyond the likely FDA approval date. Many have deadlines in October or even November, and the FDA is expected to grant full approval in early September.

Also, the case that was mentioned upthread, where the hospital won't allow any exemptions, is the exception — the federal government and the vast majority of businesses are allowing medical, and in some cases also religious, exemptions.

I'm not sure if the hospital I mentioned allows *no* exemptions, or if their bar is way higher than, say, for going to a university.

The coworker who breached the protocols thinks he can get an exemption.  The OR person who didn't came up because my kid was thinking if they weren't granted one, this dude doesn't have a snowball's chance.  But there apparently is paperwork to file for one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Yeah, having antibodies is no indication that you can’t get COVID again. Remember too that delta (and all the upcoming variations) behave differently than the original. Similar to how the flu morphs each year so we get vaccinated annually—having had the flu last winter doesn’t protect you from getting it this year.

I don't think there is reason to think that Covid re-infection (including variants) cases are more common than breakthrough cases after vax.  If that information is available, I'd like to read it.  My impression is that it's more rare to get Covid twice than to get a breakthrough case.  If that is true, then I don't see why people with natural antibodies should be required to vax.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re mandates, at-will employment, "essential workers," and employer liability issues

12 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

I will never take joy in seeing a government mandate forced medical injections. Never.

 

12 hours ago, Frances said:

The government is not mandating anything here. Private employers are. And no one is being forced to get an injection. They are free to find a different job.

 

12 hours ago, Plum said:

So if you are forced to choose between your job and the vaccine by your employer and you develop Guillain-Barre that causes permanent nerve damage and requires physical therapy, can you sue your employer? Is your job and healthcare protected and paid for by your employer while you recover? Will they pay for your time off?

These are genuinely difficult tradeoffs.

To my mind it is essential, in thinking the tradeoffs through, to recall where we were a year ago, when health care workers were desperate for PPE to prevent transmission of COVID to them; when closely-packed in meatpackers were falling ill in droves, when teachers were imploring districts to fund masks, more-spaced-classrooms, better ventilation.  Meatpackers who took time off to quarantine were fired, without recourse.  Meatpackers who went into the hospital because they had themselves fallen ill were fired, without recourse.

At that time, many states and the sitting President were advocating policies to grant employers immunity from lawsuits for workers who contracted COVID in the workplace.  There was certainly never any serious policy discussion that if "essential" workers really were essential, then funding to protect them from COVID transmission (let alone wage increases in the face of increased risk) were warranted. 

Open Up!!... but on the cheap... was the clarion cry then.

And at that time, as noted above, many posters on this board took the view that if "essential workers" weren't comfortable with the risk of contracting COVID, they were "free" to find another job. 

And that is, after all, what at-will employment means.  That is what it means to privilege employer rights > worker rights.  That is the economy America has built, long before COVID.

 

I actually think these issues and tradeoffs are genuinely difficult.  No *easy* one size fits all solutions.  There are both political and legal differences between government mandates and employer mandates; between known & contained diseases vs widely raging-out-of-control new disease; compliance with ADA/ true medical exemptions/ protected classes vs "I just don't wanna, Muh Rights" libertarian arguments.  Perhaps too between fully approved vaccine vs EUA though that hasn't been tested in the courts.

 

But if you believed last fall that it was the responsibility of teachers to resume in-person classes even in the absence of funding for PPE, HVAC, more classrooms and aides to lower density -- that is, if you believed last fall teachers should be compelled to risk their own health (and that of their family members), and if they didn't like that they could find another job... it is inconsistent, today, to kvetch about vaccine mandates; find another job.  If you believed a year ago that granting liability immunity to meatpacker employers made sense... it is inconsistent, today, to invoke employer responsibility for potential vaccine reactions.

 

3 hours ago, MEmama said:

We have posters here who, at the beginning of the pandemic, stated that if healthcare workers don’t like the conditions (overrun hospitals, no PPP, understaffing, the emotional toll), they had the freedom to quit and get a new job. That’s the freedom of at will employment.
 

Funny, indeed, how quickly and seamlessly they can change their thinking, without the slightest hint of irony.

I don't know that I'd call it "ironic," so much as every so often we get a tight little object lesson that brings both sides of a complex system into sharp and visible relief.

The US system of employer-labor relations is in many ways an outlier, compared to our peer nations.  Employees really don't have meaningful rights here, compared to our peer nations  There are very long very deep historical reasons for that; it's a different thread. But COVID has given us a powerful lens for looking at the effects of that structure from both ends of the telescope.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

I don't know that I'd call it "ironic," so much as every so often we get a tight little object lesson that brings both sides of a complex system into sharp and visible relief.

The US system of employer-labor relations is in many ways an outlier, compared to our peer nations.  Employees really don't have meaningful rights here, compared to our peer nations  There are very long very deep historical reasons for that; it's a different thread. But COVID has given us a powerful lens for looking at the effects of that structure from both ends of the telescope.

Astute. And again, it goes back to the role of government. People protest that government does not have a right to interfere in private business, and then the minute private business does something they do not like, suddenly want the big, bad gubmint to come knock the employer in the teeth. The logical inconsistency is staggering.

Having watched my husband struggle through 30 years of employment in I.T., I can confidently say there are virtually no protections for employees. His corporate overlords can do just about anything they want with out fear. I think it need to change. He thinks it needs to change. Everyone who has worked a 100 hr. work week for no pay raise, bonus, additional vacation time, etc. while on salary thinks it needs to change. Everyone who is on call 24/7, and  expected to work while at his son's hospital bedside thinks it needs to change. But when we advocate for that, we are evil liberals who want big government, and communists, and yadayayayayada. Same people then crap bricks if told by their employer to wear a mask or get a vaccine, all of sudden our "socialist" agenda sounds okay. Well, until they get their way on their issue, and then back to grousing about gubmint and liberals. It gets really, really old!

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just add that we actually have several divides. In the article I listed somewhere on the thread, it mentioned that in rural areas the vaccine hesitant were poorer Republicans, while in the cities it was minorities. Both were for trust issues.  So we have that divide as far as who will and will not get vaccinated.

But now we also have a divide on those who are vaccinated: no precautions vs some precautions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

I would just add that we actually have several divides. In the article I listed somewhere on the thread, it mentioned that in rural areas the vaccine hesitant were poorer Republicans, while in the cities it was minorities. Both were for trust issues.  So we have that divide as far as who will and will not get vaccinated.

But now we also have a divide on those who are vaccinated: no precautions vs some precautions. 

And like my dh and me, vaccinated lots of precautions. As a nation, lots and lots of divides. Taking into account belief systems, there are religious divides over this as well with mainstream non-evangelicals like Episcopal, Methodists and Presbyterian taking more precautionary stands than other deniminations, plus divides in other religions as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

I would just add that we actually have several divides. In the article I listed somewhere on the thread, it mentioned that in rural areas the vaccine hesitant were poorer Republicans, while in the cities it was minorities. Both were for trust issues.  So we have that divide as far as who will and will not get vaccinated.

But now we also have a divide on those who are vaccinated: no precautions vs some precautions. 

An article I posted on who knows what thread now showed similar to what you are saying, except that the rural, white, evangelical, older, Republican group was more in the no vax group and the urban, younger, Democratic, more racially diverse group was more vaccine hesitant. And that the former group was significantly larger than the latter. It seems that public health officials are focusing more effort on the vaccine hesitant, as that is likely where more uptake is still possible.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 5:36 PM, Susan in TX said:

What is the evidence for this?

Susan in TX

 

On 8/3/2021 at 5:42 PM, Susan in TX said:

Where is the proof? Are there studies? How exactly do we know this is happening and to what extent?

Susan in TX

Why do you keep asking these questions? I and several other people have answered them and there are dying children on the news every day. Last week it was a skinny 5 year old with no pre-existing conditions.  In multiple Asian countries hundreds or thousands of children have died.  In the NY Times article I posted yesterday it said HALF the deaths in children were in those under 5.  If you don’t believe us why don’t you google it yourself or just flat out say you think it’s a hoax?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This data is from the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Linking it in response to questions about hospitalization rates for vaccinated vs unvaccinated people. 

 

As of today, there are 954 people hospitalized for COVID in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is dead last for variant testing so no good data on how many of these people have the Delta Variant. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how the J&J is holding up against delta? I’ve seen reports about how “they” think pfizer is doing but nothing about J&J. 
 

Also, has anyone heard anything new about novavax? When it might be approved? How it does against delta? Last I heard it was highly effective, comparable to the initial effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, but with significantly reduced side effects. I believe I read that it was extremely effective against variants as well but I don’t know if delta was one of them. I read an article about it a few weeks ago (that I can’t find now) suggesting this might be the better vaccine option once approved. I know several people who are hesitant to take an mRNA vaccine that would happily take this option if it was available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 2ndGenHomeschooler said:

I know several people who are hesitant to take an mRNA vaccine that would happily take this option if it was available. 

Do you know why they are opposed to Johnson and Johnson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Do you know why they are opposed to Johnson and Johnson?

Possibly because of fetal cells but I don’t know if that would be an issue with Novavax as well. Primarily, these friends are among the vaccine hesitant who are now considering getting off the fence and getting a vaccine. The J&J would be a first choice (among approved vaccines) but if it doesn’t have any effectiveness against delta it seems kind of pointless as delta is responsible for the vast majority of cases around here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndGenHomeschooler said:

Possibly because of fetal cells but I don’t know if that would be an issue with Novavax as well. Primarily, these friends are among the vaccine hesitant who are now considering getting off the fence and getting a vaccine. The J&J would be a first choice (among approved vaccines) but if it doesn’t have any effectiveness against delta it seems kind of pointless as delta is responsible for the vast majority of cases around here. 

Again from the article I linked above:

It is important to note that fetal cell lines can be used in three different stages of vaccine development: design, confirmation and ongoing production. Many ethicists, including those at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, believe that using a fetal cell line for ongoing vaccine production is more ethically problematic than using a fetal cell line for design or confirmation. The design and confirmation steps use a limited number of fetal cells while the production stage is continuous.

Below is a chart that designates the known involvement of fetal cell lines in the six leading vaccine candidates:

COVIDvaccineChart.png.3025552dbd9a3cdd97c2981f9b9f06a8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexasProud said:

Again from the article I linked above:

It is important to note that fetal cell lines can be used in three different stages of vaccine development: design, confirmation and ongoing production. Many ethicists, including those at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, believe that using a fetal cell line for ongoing vaccine production is more ethically problematic than using a fetal cell line for design or confirmation. The design and confirmation steps use a limited number of fetal cells while the production stage is continuous.

Below is a chart that designates the known involvement of fetal cell lines in the six leading vaccine candidates:

COVIDvaccineChart.png.3025552dbd9a3cdd97c2981f9b9f06a8.png

Does the red x mean that they aren't used? I'm confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Does the red x mean that they aren't used? I'm confused. 

No, the red X means fetal cells are used for that purpose, and the green check means they aren't used (i.e. therefore more acceptable to those who object to the use of fetal cells). See the note with the chart, below

ETA: I believe that some of the Chinese attenuated-virus vaccines do not use fetal cells for anything, so they get three green checkmarks.

 

Screen Shot 2021-08-05 at 2.28.59 PM.png

Edited by Corraleno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Corraleno said:

 

No, I believe the red X means fetal cells are used for that purpose, and the green check means they aren't used (i.e. therefore more acceptable to those who object to the use of fetal cells).

 

 

OK that makes sense from what TexasProud was intially saying but that use is the opposite of what my brain tells me those symbols should be used for! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. Do they also refuse hypothermia treatment (derived from experiments on prisoners by Nazis), and other treatments that have unfortunately come from unethical experimentation in the last, often causing loss of life? Much of what we know today about cervical cancer came from many women not being told they had cervical cancer, allowing nature to take its course so the researchers could watch the disease progression instead of giving these women life saving surgery, anemia treatments derived from data mined from the Tuskegee horrors. Do those folks who protest fetal cell line vaccines also refuse cervical cancer treatment if needed? It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

Just curious. I don't have a dog in that fight because I am not concerned about next so cell lines.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a much more extensive chart on the Charlotte Lozier Institute website, which includes lots of vaccines from all over the world. Many of the Chinese vaccines use monkey cells, so they get all "green" boxes. But it seems unlikely that we will have a US-approved vaccine that didn't at least use fetal cells in the confirmation step, and that was a one-time, done deal, so there's no way to go back and change that. But the mRNA and Novavax vaccines do not use any fetal cell lines in production.

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. ...

It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

There is so much inconsistency, it makes my head hurt. Shouldn't "pro-life" also include protecting the lives of already born humans and thus being in favor of Covid mitigation measures like masks?
How can the same people insist on their personal freedom to spread their germs while at the same time wanting to regulate what other people do with their bodies? 
But I guess trying to apply logic isn't going to work.

ETA: and of course, I know, #notallchristians. 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

OK that makes sense from what TexasProud was intially saying but that use is the opposite of what my brain tells me those symbols should be used for! 

Yeah, I know. Me, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. Do they also refuse hypothermia treatment (derived from experiments on prisoners by Nazis), and other treatments that have unfortunately come from unethical experimentation in the last, often causing loss of life? Much of what we know today about cervical cancer came from many women not being told they had cervical cancer, allowing nature to take its course so the researchers could watch the disease progression instead of giving these women life saving surgery, anemia treatments derived from data mined from the Tuskegee horrors. Do those folks who protest fetal cell line vaccines also refuse cervical cancer treatment if needed? It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

Just curious. I don't have a dog in that fight because I am not concerned about next so cell lines.

Understand the CMDA was giving the ok on Pfizer and Moderna. That is what they were advising their members to get. They were pro-vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. Do they also refuse hypothermia treatment (derived from experiments on prisoners by Nazis), and other treatments that have unfortunately come from unethical experimentation in the last, often causing loss of life? Much of what we know today about cervical cancer came from many women not being told they had cervical cancer, allowing nature to take its course so the researchers could watch the disease progression instead of giving these women life saving surgery, anemia treatments derived from data mined from the Tuskegee horrors. Do those folks who protest fetal cell line vaccines also refuse cervical cancer treatment if needed? It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

Just curious. I don't have a dog in that fight because I am not concerned about next so cell lines.

I think it is one of the pros and cons to be weighed.  In this case, the three vaxes currently available in the US don't equally involve fetal stem cells, so it is worth knowing this difference.

While these are historical fetal cell lines (not from recent abortions) afaik, it still sends a message if people won't choose a product that used fetal cell lines in development/production.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

There is so much inconsistency, it makes my head hurt. Shouldn't "pro-life" also include protecting the lives of already born humans and thus being in favor of Covid mitigation measures like masks?
How can the same people insist on their personal freedom to spread their germs while at the same time wanting to regulate what other people do with their bodies? 
But I guess trying to apply logic isn't going to work.

Are you sure these are the same people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

There is so much inconsistency, it makes my head hurt. Shouldn't "pro-life" also include protecting the lives of already born humans and thus being in favor of Covid mitigation measures like masks?
How can the same people insist on their personal freedom to spread their germs while at the same time wanting to regulate what other people do with their bodies? 
But I guess trying to apply logic isn't going to work.

CMDA said they should wear masks and also said churches should not meet in person for a long time. When they did meet in person they should only have instrumental music, no singing, masked and social distanced in a well-ventilated room.  YES...  pro life means ALL life.  There are many of us that are for stewarding the environment ( joining go in healing creation from man's sin), pro life which means from cradle to the grave, etc.  I have furnished a room for women and given to an organization in our town that helps women involved in sex trafficking ( run by a Christian woman who was a former exotic dancer), helped a young teenager who is pregnant, gave money to a friend who is working with a pregnancy crisis center, etc. I am slow into getting into racial justice, but working on it.  So don't paint all Christians with a broad brush. 🙂

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Understand the CMDA was giving the ok on Pfizer and Moderna. That is what they were advising their members to get. They were pro-vaccine.

It's more the disconnect of refusing the J&J vaccine, on grounds of being prolife, even though refusing it will save ZERO babies, and using it will abort ZERO babies...so refusing it saves ZERO lives....but getting vaccinated CAN save lives. So logically, the prolife position should be the one that has the chance to save lives - which is getting vaccinated. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of people claiming they won't get a covid vax because of fetal cell lines got one or more of the MMR, varicella, or Hep A vaccines, without ever checking whether they used fetal cells lines. (They do.)

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

It's more the disconnect of refusing the J&J vaccine, on grounds of being prolife, even though refusing it will save ZERO babies, and using it will abort ZERO babies...so refusing it saves ZERO lives....but getting vaccinated CAN save lives. So logically, the prolife position should be the one that has the chance to save lives - which is getting vaccinated. 

Yeah, but the production requires the fetal cells, therby encouraging more abortions. At least that is the way I look at it. Using cells that are old and already done in a limited fashion bothers me, but not as much.  I am using part of a dead baby to save my own life, which makes me a little uncomfortable.  Since I have options, I choose the Pfizer or Moderna.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

Are you sure these are the same people?

Around here, there is a very large pro life demographic, a very low vaccination rate, and an extremely high mask refusal. The math dictates that there must be a large overlap. Of course, there may be some people who are pro-life, forgo the vaccine, and do their utmost to protect their fellow humans - but they seem to be a small minority here.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of people claiming they won't get a covid vax because of fetal cell lines got one or more of the MMR, varicella, or Hep A vaccines, without ever checking whether they used fetal cells lines. (They do.)

Actually there has been discussion about this:

https://cmda.org/article/is-vaccination-complicit-with-abortion/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, but the production requires the fetal cells, therby encouraging more abortions. At least that is the way I look at it. Using cells that are old and already done in a limited fashion bothers me, but not as much.  I am using part of a dead baby to save my own life, which makes me a little uncomfortable.  Since I have options, I choose the Pfizer or Moderna.

No - they grow more cells from the same original cells - ALL fetal cells used for the last several decades and those used in the future are grown in a lab from the same original cells. NO new abortions are involved. 

I think it is really important we get that information out there - what you are saying is a commonly held belief, but it simply isn't true. If it was, I'd agree with you!

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Yeah, but the production requires the fetal cells, therby encouraging more abortions. At least that is the way I look at it. Using cells that are old and already done in a limited fashion bothers me, but not as much.  I am using part of a dead baby to save my own life, which makes me a little uncomfortable.  Since I have options, I choose the Pfizer or Moderna.

Nooooo, they are not using cells from any recent abortions, ALL the cells used are from three abortions that happened many decades ago. The cells themselves are grown in the lab.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ktgrok said:

No - they grow more cells from the same original cells - ALL fetal cells used for the last several decades and those used in the future are grown in a lab from the same original cells. NO new abortions are involved. 

I think it is really important we get that information out there - what you are saying is a commonly held belief, but it simply isn't true. If it was, I'd agree with you!

Yes, I know that. I'm sorry I didn't express myself very well. The article I just posted explains it better.  But still you do not want to encourage embryonic use from abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Nooooo, they are not using cells from any recent abortions, ALL the cells used are from two abortions that happened many decades ago. The cells themselves are grown in the lab.

I know that but just using them is not good. Read the latest article I posted. He feels how I feel. I just don't express myself well.

Edited by TexasProud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of people claiming they won't get a covid vax because of fetal cell lines got one or more of the MMR, varicella, or Hep A vaccines, without ever checking whether they used fetal cells lines. (They do.)

I think general awareness of how they use(d) fetal cell lines is fairly recent.  As for me, I didn't even know what abortion was when I got my vaxes, but that doesn't mean I am forever locked into whatever choices my family made in my childhood.

I don't smoke either, though I was born into the home of a smoker.  Is there a logic problem with that?

Maybe if folks were generally aware of the fetal cell situation when those older vaxes came into being, there would have been enough pressure on the developers to try to find a way that didn't use fetal cells.  Especially for vaxes like chickenpox which didn't even need a vax.  At the very least, parents would have protested making the varicella vax mandatory for school entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I think general awareness of how they use(d) fetal cell lines is fairly recent.  As for me, I didn't even know what abortion was when I got my vaxes, but that doesn't mean I am forever locked into whatever choices my family made in my childhood.

I don't smoke either, though I was born into the home of a smoker.  Is there a logic problem with that?

Maybe if folks were generally aware of the fetal cell situation when those older vaxes came into being, there would have been enough pressure on the developers to try to find a way that didn't use fetal cells.  Especially for vaxes like chickenpox which didn't even need a vax.  At the very least, parents would have protested making the varicella vax mandatory for school entry.

Fetal cells lines are still being used in the production (not just testing) of those vaccines, and I'm sure there are parents who had no objection to their kids getting the MMR or chickenpox vax and who will likely continue to allow their kids to get those vaccines in the future without even bothering to look into the issue. I think that in the vast majority of cases where people are using it as an excuse not to get the covid vax, their objection is to that one specific vaccine, largely for political reasons, and the fetal cell issue is just an excuse that they will forget about when their kid needs the next MMR booster.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Fetal cells lines are still being used in the production (not just testing) of those vaccines, and I'm sure there are parents who had no objection to their kids getting the MMR or chickenpox vax and who will likely continue to allow their kids to get those vaccines in the future without even bothering to look into the issue. I think that in the vast majority of cases where people are using it as an excuse not to get the covid vax, their objection is to that one specific vaccine, largely for political reasons, and the fetal cell issue is just an excuse that they will forget about when their kid needs the next MMR booster.

Maybe, but it's not like they have a serious choice.  You want your kid to attend group school, you get them vaxed, unless you are willing to either lie or join a religion that bans those vaxes.  (In my state, you can't just say you personally don't like how this vax is made.)

Or, are there comparable vax options that don't use fetal cells?  Do parents have a realistic option?

Like many consumer choices we make, this is somewhat symbolic, but worth making the statement when possible.  Yes, these cells resulted from abortions that happened long ago, but there is still a lobby for government support of new stem cell lines.  Many Americans don't want to encourage that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. Do they also refuse hypothermia treatment (derived from experiments on prisoners by Nazis), and other treatments that have unfortunately come from unethical experimentation in the last, often causing loss of life? Much of what we know today about cervical cancer came from many women not being told they had cervical cancer, allowing nature to take its course so the researchers could watch the disease progression instead of giving these women life saving surgery, anemia treatments derived from data mined from the Tuskegee horrors. Do those folks who protest fetal cell line vaccines also refuse cervical cancer treatment if needed? It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

Just curious. I don't have a dog in that fight because I am not concerned about next so cell lines.

So I can only speak for myself:

I prefer vaccines/treatments that don't use fetal cells, but if there are no other options than I prefer to vax than to not vax.

The treatments you mentioned concerning Nazis and cervical cancer are not still being performed.  Abortions are still legal, and I guess that is what makes the difference for me.

*Also, do you have links about the cervical cancer research?  My grandmother died of cervical cancer in the early 1940s...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Junie said:

So I can only speak for myself:

I prefer vaccines/treatments that don't use fetal cells, but if there are no other options than I prefer to vax than to not vax.

 

That is a totally consistent stance that makes sense to me. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

There is so much inconsistency, it makes my head hurt. Shouldn't "pro-life" also include protecting the lives of already born humans and thus being in favor of Covid mitigation measures like masks?
How can the same people insist on their personal freedom to spread their germs while at the same time wanting to regulate what other people do with their bodies? 
But I guess trying to apply logic isn't going to work.

ETA: and of course, I know, #notallchristians. 

I can maybe try to answer this or give some perspective, although I am a Christian who is very pro-vaccine, pro-mask, pro-distancing, etc.

I am pro-life and I believe that the baby is a completely separate person from the moment of conception.  So abortion is not about limiting what a woman can do with her body, but what she can do with her child's body.  

As for the many churches who are meeting in person with no/little restrictions, my best guess is that their reasoning is that spiritual health is more important than physical health.  Personally, I think there is a good compromise in online church services which is what we have been doing since March 2020.  

Some Christians use the Hebrews 10:25 verse: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.  -- And while I believe that this is a good principle, I think that during a global pandemic (or any illness) this verse does not need to be applied to attending in-person services.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I am always a little confused by folks who won't use a vaccine made with fetal cell lines that aren't even the original cells. Do they also refuse hypothermia treatment (derived from experiments on prisoners by Nazis), and other treatments that have unfortunately come from unethical experimentation in the last, often causing loss of life? Much of what we know today about cervical cancer came from many women not being told they had cervical cancer, allowing nature to take its course so the researchers could watch the disease progression instead of giving these women life saving surgery, anemia treatments derived from data mined from the Tuskegee horrors. Do those folks who protest fetal cell line vaccines also refuse cervical cancer treatment if needed? It seems to me that a consistent pro-life stance on the issue would mean rejecting many other treatments as well.

Just curious. I don't have a dog in that fight because I am not concerned about next so cell lines.

I would guess in most cases, people dont know and haven’t thought about those other things; they just latch onto what “someone” tells them or agree with a meme posted in a, “Yeah! Thats right!” way. 

To some extent, we pretty much all do this. I don’t read the books my ethical vegan friends read because I DON’T WANT TO KNOW. It also explains rather well how someone can be a vegetarian, then move into veganism, then go extremely far on it because there is always the logic of, “Well, if I’m not okay with X, why do I think Z is okay?” 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Junie said:

I can maybe try to answer this or give some perspective, although I am a Christian who is very pro-vaccine, pro-mask, pro-distancing, etc.

I am pro-life and I believe that the baby is a completely separate person from the moment of conception.  So abortion is not about limiting what a woman can do with her body, but what she can do with her child's body.  

As for the many churches who are meeting in person with no/little restrictions, my best guess is that their reasoning is that spiritual health is more important than physical health.  Personally, I think there is a good compromise in online church services which is what we have been doing since March 2020.  

Some Christians use the Hebrews 10:25 verse: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.  -- And while I believe that this is a good principle, I think that during a global pandemic (or any illness) this verse does not need to be applied to attending in-person services.

Thank you for trying to explain. It is still not logical to me. Unborn baby is a separate person and must be protected - but the born people that are out in the community can be exposed to illness because the person cannot be bothered to mask? It's not like they're only gathering for spiritual health in church - it's restaurants and malls, carnivals and fairs. Unmasked and mocking those who dare mask. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Thank you for trying to explain. It is still not logical to me. Unborn baby is a separate person and must be protected - but the born people that are out in the community can be exposed to illness because the person cannot be bothered to mask? It's not like they're only gathering for spiritual health in church - it's restaurants and malls, carnivals and fairs. Unmasked and mocking those who dare mask. 

 

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense, and I'm just guessing at their reasoning. 

My impression of what my church is doing is that they feel like it is your responsibility to stay home if you don't want to catch covid.  They had all online services for awhile, and then slowly opened back up.  They are pretty much meeting as normal right now.  (I think -- I haven't been there.)

I don't think that churches realize that they are ruining their reputation with the community by not having better restrictions.  And this is so disheartening to me.  The church is supposed to be a light in the community, not self-serving.  Yet this is what they are doing. 😞

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*In the interest of full disclosure -- I did take dd10 to Vacation Bible School at our church earlier this summer.  She stayed home through the entire lockdown until at least some of the more vulnerable members of our family were vaccinated -- 430 days!  The one thing that she asked to do this summer was to go to VBS because it was her last year.  We quarantined for two weeks before and again for two weeks after so that our only exposure during that time was VBS.  500 people with no distancing, she was one of only about 5 kids wearing a mask.  And they had to shut down on the last day because of some positive covid tests.  I knew that it was likely to happen.  And now that the Delta variant is loose, we will likely not be attending church in person until all of us are vaccinated.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...