Have you tested positive for COVID?

[formernuke]

If you do the math it is $6.50 a shot. Most need 2 shots. So $13 a person. Seems very reasonable to me.

Not sure why any one would get excited about this. Seems cheaper than diabetes?

What Is the Monthly Cost of Insulin in Canada?.

I have not seen any info on the cost for transport, storage and injection. Could be more than the cost of the vaccine?

The big cost with diabetes is the cost of test strips. With insurance 1 dollar per, should test at least 6 times a day.....glad I'm diet controlled and don't have to worry about it anymore.

 

[tridacna]

The big cost with diabetes is the cost of test strips. With insurance 1 dollar per, should test at least 6 times a day.....glad I'm diet controlled and don't have to worry about it anymore.

1. Test strips can be purchased on Amazon for about 15c per strip. My crappy health insurance covers me at zero cost anyway. You must have really lousy health insurance. Aren't you a vet?

2. How do you know that you're diet controlled if you no longer test? My A1C is 5.9 before you ask.

3. You're a Type II, right? Who tests 6 times per day? Seriously? Once on wake up and a few weekly +2hr post-prandial tests should be sufficient to monitor your numbers. If you're that concerned, get a CGM.

 

[formernuke]

1. Test strips can be purchased on Amazon for about 15c per strip. My crappy health insurance covers me at zero cost anyway. You must have really lousy health insurance. Aren't you a vet?

2. How do you know that you're diet controlled if you no longer test? My A1C is 5.9 before you ask.

3. You're a Type II, right? Who tests 6 times per day? Seriously? Once on wake up and a few weekly +2hr post-prandial tests should be sufficient to monitor your numbers. If you're that concerned, get a CGM.

I was taking 4 shots of insulin a day testing before each meal, 2 hours after each meal, before bed and if I felt weird.

I know I'm diet controlled because my A1C has been 6 without any meds for the last 3 years.

I didn't always have VA health insurance

 

[Bottom Surveyor]

Thank you for posting this.

Any time.

It is a wonderful example of someone spinning a common event to their agenda while completely ignoring the true medical explanation.

Her own explanation was that "she has a condition and often faints, when she feels pain" and that "it was quite characteristic for her".
Which would be quite plausible - had she not fainted just as she was uttering that "she felt great" - not reporting any pain whatsoever. Go figure.

I am also absolutely sure that that two extremely successful and wealthy companies that "developed" the vaccine would leave things to chance and completely neglect to screen the medical history of one of the first persons they chose to administer the vaccine to. Especially for any imuno - deficiencies and/or pre - existing conditions, such as the person being prone to fainting when taking a jab. And all of that during their own carefully prepared publicity event, right in front of the press and TV cameras, with millions watching. Yeah, right.
Companies typically get to be that big, by exercising ineptitude on such a spectacular scale.

Based on this, in fact, I would argue quite the opposite: that this is a perfect example of someone who is spinning an event to suit their narrative, in the process completely ignoring all the illogicalities of an explanation which, frankly, falls into the category of "dog ate my homework".

 

[Darnold9999]

It amazes me the chains of logic that people will string together to support their convoluted conspiracy theories. So your theory is that Pfizer did a medical background check and choose the people who first got the vaccine in all the TV shots of people getting the first shot in all the jurisdictions throughout the world just so they can ensure that those people they know will have an adverse reaction to their new vaccine will be excluded from this TV coverage, but one slipped through their web - makes perfect sense. All provinces in Canada, all states in the US, all counties in the UK etc. etc. because all those first shots were televised because this is good news and local news outlets like this kind of thing. As opposed to one front line health worker fainted when they got a shot in front of a crowd of people and TV cameras because they commonly faint when getting shots (a very common reaction - see above where Wookie states he faints about half the time). Sorry I go with the KISS principle here. The simple explanation makes way more sense than a convoluted conspiracy theory that requires a large company to control hundreds of bureaucracies and media outlets throughout the world.

 

[formernuke]

@Wookie

If you faint at needles how did you survive the two at time stations in boot...or did you wake up after it was over?

Saw one guy drop when I was in that line.

 

[Wookie]

@Wookie

If you faint at needles how did you survive the two at time stations in boot...or did you wake up after it was over?

Saw one guy drop when I was in that line.

I was dragged through the line.

 

[uncfnp]

Apologies if previously mentioned but during the FDA review Moderna reported limited evidence that the vaccine does indeed limit transmission. The AstraZeneca vaccine also had similar limited but encouraging data.

The Moderna vaccine now has FDA approval.

 

[uncfnp]

Any time.

It’s posts like the one on twitter where events or statistics are taken by the uninformed and twisted to serve their purpose that almost kept the nursing home residents out of the first group for vaccination. We know that as soon as there are deaths in the vaccinated group of residents, which there will be just because of their age and health and has nothing to do with the vaccine, anti-vaccine groups will be all over it and expound on the dangers of vaccination.

This is one of the reasons for all the media coverage of the first doses going out. It is hoped that by seeing healthcare providers willingly accepting vaccination, people that are well informed of the risk/benefit, we can combat at least some of the twitter and other social media misinformation campaign while also reaching out to the underserved and marginalized groups.

 

[KenGordon]

So your stance is "Blame everyone and everything but mothers"? This idea would be hard to sell. I've seen pregnant women who drank and smoked, and you've seen such behavior too, I am sure. Do you also consider the warning labels saying "pregnant women should not drink alcohol" the same blame-the-mothers kind of thing? Many of them are on antidepressants and take other medications, most of which, as someone here already remarked, had never been tested in pregnant women and infants because such studies are impossible to undertake. So why not study the data w/o any bias such as "do not blame the mothers" or "blame the FDA" or "it's OK to blame only the Big Pharma and the Government" etc, then inform the public, so everyone can make their best educated decision according to their understanding of whether 60% increased risk is high or low? And then (yes) deal with consequences. In some cases the FDA takes responsibility saying "this drug is too dangerous, we can't allow it", but in some cases when the drug benefits some but can harm others people need to take responsibility and decide for themselves. Here is a good illustration of biased one-way view on the subject (but I am sure there are examples of the opposite kind):
View attachment 630876

There is overwhelming evidence that smoking and drinking damage unborn children in numerous different ways. That is not a small risk and completely avoidable. Telling people about those risks has caused a decline in smoking and drinking in pregnancy.

These autism studies are very small studies indicating increases in much smaller risks. Indeed the smoking studies cover quite a lot of the same outcomes.

The point is not to blame anyone else other than mothers, the point is that some causes are impossible to identify and so there is no blame. Even an increased risk is not a cause.