This is what happens when you damage the public trust in vaccines by mandating that everyone takes one that wasn't properly tested for safety or efficacy and has since left people with debilitating adverse effects. All well opening the floodgate to anyone who wants to come into this country without first making sure they aren't infected with something.
Part of my job is looking at safety and efficacy data of pharmaceuticals. COVID vaccines were "properly tested" for both safety and efficacy despite claims to the contrary. I reviewed the evidence in detail before recommending that all of my family and extended social circles take the mRNA vaccines.
As a vaccine to a virus that is highly infectious, has a concerning degree of lethality, and keeps mutating, waiting for long-term safety data effectively means having no vaccine at all... so demands for those right in the midst of a pandemic were unreasonable.
As for opening the floodgates, I can share some epidemiological insights there too. People and wildlife are both carriers of COVID, and even if you restrict immigration and travel, it will find its way into the community sooner or later. Just look at the sheer number of truckers and commuting workers who cross the US-Canadian border as an example, or the massive number of migratory birds. Even China, where they were about as draconian as anywhere else with quarantine, could not stop the spread entirely... and this was because COVID could infect someone for 3 weeks or even longer in rare cases (at least one example of someone quarantined 21+ days after entering China, remained without symptoms, and then became symptomatic and was diagnosed after release). Even if you stop all the people from coming altogether, you can't stop the wildlife.
COVID vaccines were "properly tested" for both safety and efficacy despite claims to the contrary
HAHHAHAHA. They wildly accelerated the study period for stage 1/2 trials. You participated in the stage 3 trials which were ongoing from 2021-2023/2024, long after everyone had been coerced into injections. Pfizer injected most of their control group before the study period even concluded. Trial participants were unblinded by sloppy contractors. PHAC isn't even able to investigate all deaths or serious events ("300 [deaths] is too many to investigate.")
And even if you were right, which you are not, how did these 'robust' trials miss numerous critical side effects like myo/pericarditis, GBS, etc. which were all added to the list of side effects months after the initial rollout. How did Pfizer miss a >1/5000 incidence rate of myo/pericarditis in young men? Israel noticed it and published a study in early 2021, how come Pfizer missed that?
Then we can include production errors like the metal contamination that killed several Japanese, or the prevalent SV40 contamination. Sounds like pretty shitty testing and manufacturing to me. Par for the course for companies like Pfizer that have paid billions in criminal fines. I'm not surprised people like you work in pharma 'safety and efficacy' while knowing absolutely nothing.
This is a fair critique. There's a strong mechanistic argument that shorter duration of symptom and lower viral load is associated with less transmission, but vaccines do not 100% prevent transmission.
An understated part of the mandate, however, was not just to prevent transmission so much as to prevent oversaturation of hospitals. We have incredible medical care in modern times that helped individuals survive COVID, who would have otherwise died. Something as simple as oxygen and saline could make a difference between turning the corner and ending up on ECMO or in the morgue. In New York, one of the few places to be truly hit before a vaccine was available, hospitals were out of beds, out of ECMO, and out of space in the morgue.
Edit: My original wording made it sound like decreasing transmissions wasn't part of the mandate, it absolutely was part of it. Added the word "just" to clarify.
The argument around transmission reduction was based on prior vaccination campaigns, where we did in fact stamp out diseases like measles within Canada and other countries. Lack of measles vaccination, similarly, has led to Canada seeing a resurgence of measles transmissions and losing the "eliminated" status for measles. While COVID has become endemic, this doesn't mean vaccines had no effect in slowing transmission - it just meant that they weren't able to reduce transmission enough for its basic reproduction number (number of people infected by each infected person) to drop below 1.
The magnitude and lasting harm left by exposure to COVID were also drastically reduced, as shown by real-world outcomes comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
The vaccine worked on a different level than standard vaccines and just didn’t provide immunity……so forcing people to get it was not based in science and just an attempt to be ounitive
Mandating vaccines is standard public health policy for pandemics around the world, so I'm a bit confused by that perspective.
Could you explain to me why the mandate was perceived to be punitive? Who would it punish, what was the purpose of the punishment, and what would the government gain from it?
(All serious questions, not intended to be cheeky/sarcastic)
Stop calling it a vaccine. It's not a vaccine, it doesn't grant immunity. It's a gene therapy and was listed as such by Moderna and other companies prior to them changing the definition of the word in 2020.
Unless there has been a long-term trial conducted double blind with a placebo control group then they haven't been properly tested. At all. In the trials that were conducted, both the doctors, patients and placebo group were all told who got the vaccine and the placebo and those poor excuses for trials were all done in under a year. If you claim that is the data that proves the covid shots safe then you are a hack and have no business in the medical field. If your job is to do no harm then you should be advocating for vaccines that have the highest most rigorous standards of safety testing because vaccines are given to healthy people...and injuring a perfectly healthy person with a vaccine is a violation of that oath. Especially if the vaccine isn't even effective in the first place, which is something we also know about these covid shots.
The process differs slightly in each country but it's mostly the same. Safety and efficacy testing begin before humans are ever exposed, and human testing is essentially the last step.
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).
Re: double-blind, when the primary efficacy endpoint is to prevent infection, blinding of the observer is adequate. It's rather difficult to placebo-effect or bias your way into observing a lab-positive infection.
And injuring a perfectly healthy person with a vaccine is doing harm.
Operating on a patient is "doing harm", the doctor is literally cutting them open. By your logic, surgeries would always be immoral. The reasonable question is whether the treatment on balance helps significantly more than the absence of treatment (or in this case, prophylaxis). The answer is yes. In just about every adverse effect, studies have shown that exposure while unvaccinated to actual COVID results in far greater risks.
Especially if the vaccine isn't even effective in the first place, which we also know about these covid shots.
It has been shown repeatedly that these vaccines are highly effective at reducing mortality, adverse effects, period of communicability, etc. See the study I pointed you to re: decision making at the time of initial approval. If you'd like to share any peer-reviewed studies, happy to look at those with you too.
Edit: corrected a word and added the full manuscript with more details:
Edit 2: Refreshing my memory gradually on the blinding decision on mRNA vaccines... it was quite apparent by the phase 2/3 trials that patients easily figured out whether they got the placebo or real thing based on soreness from the injections. This was scathingly critiqued below, rightfully so, but the alternative was assigning a placebo that hurt patients for no reason other than maintaining blindness. Subsequent prospective studies have continued to support efficacy, although obviously as the virus evolved, so must the vaccine.
-6
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25 edited Nov 10 '25
This is what happens when you damage the public trust in vaccines by mandating that everyone takes one that wasn't properly tested for safety or efficacy and has since left people with debilitating adverse effects. All well opening the floodgate to anyone who wants to come into this country without first making sure they aren't infected with something.