Summary
A school in Rösrath, Germany, temporarily closed after two children from the same family tested positive for the mpox clade 1b variant.
The children, who attend a special needs school, contracted the virus from a family member who recently traveled to Africa.
All infected family members are in quarantine, and online lessons will run until Friday as a precaution.
The Robert Koch Institute confirmed the virus poses low contagion risk, requiring close physical contact for transmission. The infections are mild, and no additional cases or deaths have been reported in Germany.
Throwing stones … glasshouses?
I argued that the risk of a vaccination is negligibly small and backed that up with data. Not that the recommendations are bogus.
This is the second time you maliciously misrepresent my points.
Edit: To expand a bit: The recommendations are the recommendations because the STIKO works on a national level. 10 Person in 1 Million dying is a gamble I might be willing to take. The STIKO might not, because they potentially “sentence” ~800 people to death.
If it was actually negligible then the STIKO would say “everyone should still get vaccinated”. But it isn’t, so they don’t.
You mean you personally prefer to take the risk, and that’s fine, as said: You do you. But the chances don’t differ on a national vs. personal level, it’s still the same numbers.
Consider this: You also have a very low chance to get infected in the first place, (incidence and thus infection rates in Germany rates are very low), and on top of that the chance for the infection to be deadly or even dangerous is very low (because you (presumably) have base immunity). Those two chances combined are lower than that of getting the vaccination having nasty side effects which is why it’s not recommended to vaccinate if you’re not in a particular risk group, increasing the one, the other, or both chances.
Winning the lottery has a certain chance, getting struck by lighting has a certain chance, the chance of the same person first winning the lottery and then getting hit by lightning is smaller than either of those. And that chance is lower than catching bad side effects from the vaccine. Otherwise, as said, the STIKO would still recommend it for the general population.
The STIKO recommends whatever has the lowest number of people dying. During the pandemic, that was people getting vaccinated, now, it’s not (as long as you have base immunity). The amount of people dying because they followed STIKO recommendations will never be zero but, assuming the STIKO is doing its job, always be lower than those not following it.
yo, why are you fucking lying about the STIKO recommendations?
the link you yourself provided says to definitely get the vaccine, in no uncertain terms:
(i’m not gonna bother translating that into english; sorry about that, but it’s not worth the effort.)
the STIKO makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you absolutely should get AT LEAST 1 vaccination for “Basisimmunität” (basic immunity).
take your outright lies elsewhere with your anti-vax bullshit.
Here’s what I wrote, emphasis added:
If you’re getting vaccinated now it’s presumably a yearly fresh-up shot, not for base immunity. If that wasn’t the case, if you only got your base immunity this year the reason for the side-eye was probably because you didn’t get vaccinated back then.
Also, learn to read: You need three contacts with the virus or vaccine, not one. If you never got ill, you need three shots, if you only got ill once, you need two. Which, just for the record, I got (three, that is). You confuse me, someone who follows STIKO recommendations and thus medicinal best practice, with an anti-vaxer.
that’s not what I’m responding to.
here’s what you actually wrote:
which is a flat out lie.
they DO recommend everyone get at least one vaccine. and they still recommend that.
AT LEAST ONE.
you wrote the exact opposite of what you’re claiming now and it’s straight up disinformation.
screw that bullshit cop out you buried in parentheses halfway down AFTER, and completely disconnected from, a closed statement that is entirely false.
you can’t post a false statement, then another false statement, and then add a caveat at the end that amounts to little more than “just kidding…unless?”.
the STIKO recommendation also is not either/or as you frame it.
the actual recommendation is:
that you falsely presented as no longer being the case. it is still the case.
on top of everything, you are the one who can’t read, since you haven’t even realized that I’m a different user entirely and not the one who made the side-eye comment.
to quote another user:
You’re arguing semantics. During the whole conversation I assumed that you have base immunity, and thus did not mention it, just as I didn’t mention various other details about the recommendations.
The point still stands: The STIKO does not recommend yearly fresh-ups for people who have base immunity. You still got a fresh-up. I didn’t. Thus, I followed their recommendations, you didn’t.
this is FALSE:
the guidelines say protections last at least 12 months, after which you should still get a fresh-up, even if you have base immunity:
the recommendation literally says EVERYONE, and in this case specifically “Für Personen im Alter ≥ 18 Jahre und Schwangere ohne Grunderkrankung” (the very same paragraph, right at the beginning), has protections that last about 12 months.
this is INCLUDING “Basisimmunität”, which that same paragraph states lasts about 12 month.
they really shouldn’t use “Basisimmunität”, because it sounds like it lasts indefinitely, which is false; it lasts about 12 months, and then decreases in effectiveness.
this is apparently the part you can’t read properly: the base immunity is NOT permanent.
getting a fresh-up is the recommendation.
NOT getting a fresh-up is AGAINST the recommendation.
i can’t believe i have to state this again, but: I AM A DIFFERENT USER.
i never said anything about getting the fresh-up.
stop spreading anti-vax biullshit, just because you can’t read properly.
and especially don’t go around telling other people they can’t read, if you yourself are the one incapable of it.
to quote YOU:
yes.
No.
If they had data showing that base immunity has a drop-off, by date, effectiveness etc, that would warrant fresh-ups they would say, in very plain words, that you should get a fresh-up.
But they don’t:
For endangered groups. Not the general population. They know, for sure, that it lasts at least 12 months, but they might have good reason to believe that it lasts indefinitely, that the drop-off is not worth the risk for the general population, or some such. Ask a specialist. I’m not one, but I can read, without turning to all caps. Maybe you should read the whole thing with a cooler head.
so you admit you have no idea, and then make a definitive statement to NOT get vaccinated.
you do see the hypocrisy here, right?
and “at least” means they do not know what happens after, presumably because data is not yet available.
given that they very clearly state that getting fresh-ups does help, the reasonable assumption is to get the vaccine just in case.
not the other way around, like you did.
you are spreading misinformation, if you say not to get the vaccine, just because you assume that it has downsides.
to use your own argument: IF fresh-ups had negative effects, they would say so in plain words.
they don’t do that, which shows nicely how dumb of an argument that is.