Anti-vaxxers

volono

CDC's own figures. Vax's that are tested but no long term data set, as of yet. Swedens government own figures and VAERS own figures and I've already contracted covid and recovered, none of that can be considered bullsh*t imo. Hence the reason I DONT feel like I need one. For others it's a completely different story.

Igotadose

So, you're just here looking for a justification for your own decision? Do I have that right? You've contracted Covid (did you get a test btw to verify that?) And now, you're grand?

volono

People need to make they're own decisions about the jabs is my point and yes I was tested. Best of luck to all that gets one, I'm not and i know I'll be fine, bye.

volono

volono wrote: »

You mentioned herd immunity. This term is a bit nonsensical imo. The Vax shots ,as we've been told do not confer immunity they only mitigate the severity of covid symptoms, yet we all need to take one to achieve "herd immunity".???

It is not that the term is non-sensical. Rather the issue appears to be that you do not know what the term even means as in how and why we use it. Or what vaccines do or how they work.

There are few - arguably no - vaccines that prevent infection. Pretty much all of them prevent symptoms rather than infection. So this is not at all grounds to disparage the Covid Vaccines specifically.

The reason we get symptoms is our body goes through a lot to deal with a new disease before it can fight it off. The reason we do not get symptoms again then is not because we are immune to infection like some magical Star Trek forcefield around us. But because each time we are re-infected our body is ready to fight it off so quickly that there is no time/reason to get symptoms.

Vaccines merely train our body to do this without the "payload" that makes the virus harmful. So when we are infected with the real disease - we can fight it off quickly before symptoms arise.

Generally however when you have an infection - whether you have a natural or vaccine based "immunity" to it - you are still somewhat infectious. The amount of virus you output to infect others is not zero. It is however greatly lessened than if you had no "immunity" at all.

The term "herd immunity" therefore does not mean what your paragraph above suggests you think it does.

The first thing "Herd immunity" refers to the % of a population that has to be "immune" in order to reduce the rate at which infected people pass on further infection. And once that % has been reached the viruses ability to transmit will effectively be reduced to the point where it will die out and be eradicated entirely.

The second thing "Herd immunity" refers to is that when enough of a population is "immune" then that immunity is also conferred second hand to those who are not "immune". The transmission quantity is so low that those who for whatever reason can not become immune or receive vaccinations etc etc - are effectively protected by proxy.

So when you or I become "Immune" - whether by natural infection or vaccine - it is not just ourselves who are protected but also those around us who can not develop or be furnished their own immunity. From reading your post you seem to view vaccines in terms of nothing more than what they confer on _you_ directly as an individual. I will not defame your character by telling you what kind of person I think that makes you - but I will merely say that _I_ would not like _myself_ as a person if that was the kind of way I viewed the world.

volono wrote: »

From what I've read from the C.D.C's own figures, covid has a 99.76% survival rate

The survival/mortality rate is not the only factor that has to be considered however. But the impact of a mass uncontrolled transmission. The survival rate for example is what it is _because we can treat the ill_. We artificially lower the mortality rate by saving the people who would otherwise die from it.

If transmission is allowed unchecked however then those who we can save overload the medical system and we can no longer save them. You can look to India to see this very thing in effect right now. The "survival rate" is a % that reflects the context in which it is measured - not the actual survival rate of the disease itself.

So a good survival rate is not an argument against vaccines and lock downs and masks. Rather a good survival rate is a reflection of the efficacy of those vaccines and lock downs and masks.

But I have heard comments of this form from many antivaxxers before. Comments of the form of "Why do we even vaccinate against measles when hardly anyone anywhere has measles?". They miss the point that hardly anyone has measles _precisely because_ we have been vaccinating against it. The ignorance and privilege belied by their comment is in fact facilitated by the efficacy of the very thing they are ignorant about.

volono wrote: »

The vaccines where developed quickly

This statement in isolation tells almost none of the story and shows almost none of the "Big Picture" of the reason we were able to bring the vaccines to bear at the speed we did. Too many people refer to this speedy development as if it is defacto a mark against the vaccine(s). It is not.

There are genuine good reasons why the process was relatively fast. And many of those reasons impact not one jot on the process or suggest we did anything wrong. But those leveling the "It was done quickly" comment want to act like it means we cut corners or were hasty or irresponsible and these vaccines are therefore to be less trusted as a result.

The process was speedier because of the world wide focus on it for a start. It was speedier because of new technologies developed during the creation of older vaccines. And it was speedier due to some parts of the process which are normally done in sequence - being done in parallel. None of these things would mean the process was any less stringent or any more risky.

volono wrote: »

There's a growing number of people experiencing adverse reactions to these jabs, I read Sweden has reported 30,000 and VAERS has reported alot more.

Irrelevant. These are mere reports. All vaccines have _reports_ of adverse effects. But many of the reports:

1) The effect is placebo or does not actually exist
2) The effect if it does exist has anything to do with the vaccine.
3) The effect is in fact because the person caught the actual disease shortly before or after being injected.
4) Multiple reports: In many reporting systems you do not even know how many _people_ submitted reports either. For all you know all 30,000 reports were made by 1000 people each submitting 30 reports.

Put in brief - citing how many people have put in reports to such a reporting system tells you absolutely nothing of any practical use whatsoever. All we can do with such reports is look for common trends and then use that data to incite further research into whether there is an actual side effect of concern in play.

Further 30,000 looks like a large number. But express it as a % of the number of people vaccinated and you will find it is almost nothing. Especially given this disease and these vaccines have received near unprecedented levels of media coverage and are in the social consciousness which will artificially inflate reports of side effects in the same way a Steven Spielberg movie many years ago resulted in a spike in people reporting UFO abduction.

Seth Brundle

volono wrote: »

People need to make they're own decisions about the jabs is my point and yes I was tested. Best of luck to all that gets one, I'm not and i know I'll be fine, bye.

Firstly people aren't qualified to make an informed decision. I assume that you have no third level scientific background so you've made an important health decision based on an uninformed view.
Secondly, you don't know if you'll be fine. However, you will be less likely to contract it because as time goes on, more and more people will become vaccinated. However, by not taking it, you are making it statistically more likely for someone who cannot* take the vaccine to contract the virus.


* as opposed to selfish pricks who choose not to take it

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know. I was talking about anti-vaxxers as a whole.

The point is that any mention of Wakefield means they haven't done their research. Or at best only regurgitate the usual rubbish without checking. #

Wakefield / MMR / Autism is a handy quality filter.

Quality like "the moon landings were faked, because the moon isn't real"

moonage

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anti-vaxx nonsense.

You may recall that there's a global pandemic is afoot so urgency is something of a priority given the damage lockdowns are causing. They were tested before being released but if you can substantiate your allegations to the contrary, please do so.

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

Capt'n Midnight

volono wrote: »

CDC's own figures. Vax's that are tested but no long term data set, as of yet. Swedens government own figures and VAERS own figures and I've already contracted covid and recovered, none of that can be considered bullsh*t imo. Hence the reason I DONT feel like I need one. For others it's a completely different story.

Of course there's no long term studies. There's no long term studies on Covid either.

BUT there's evidence for Long Covid AND that past infection doesn't confer lifetime immunity. You say you feel you might not need one, but evidence strongly suggests you do.

Doctor Jimbob

Isn't it mad how all these people who aren't anti-vaxxers seem to hit all the antivax talking points in nearly every post?

ancapailldorcha

moonage wrote: »

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

So f*ck the elderly, the immunocompromised and the vulnerable, then? Anti-vaxxer narcissism and selfishness perfectly encapsulated.

ohnonotgmail

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Isn't it mad how all these people who aren't anti-vaxxers seem to hit all the antivax talking points in nearly every post?

surely just a coincidence.

volono

Thanks for posting Tazcruel, your post is very good. Like I said I'm not anti- Vax and not wearing a tinfoil hat somewhere type of thing. I posted my reasons for not wanting to receive a jab. From your post I can see why my points are skewed in my mind somewhat. The herd immunity part cleared up alot tbf. Thanks for taking the time to post and not like other posters dismiss me.....5g , tree hugger etc .
Just on the immunity part , would it be right in saying that my body does now have natural immunity after testing positive and being ill with covid last year?
If all these things where covered coherently in the news , on rte shows etc etc I think this tread would be alot smaller. I think it's only right to be able to question whether I really need to take a jab, without being dismissed. It's like , you don't agree, your a loony!!!

volono

volono wrote: »

Just on the immunity part , would it be right in saying that my body does now have natural immunity after testing positive and being ill with covid last year?

"Immunity" is still a dangerous word if you misunderstand it. People seem to think it's like a forcefield that simply stops the virus getting into your system and doing it's thing.

It is _very_ rare for that to happen. When it happens it is called “sterilising immunity”. We have almost never achieved this with any natural immunity or any vaccine as far as I know.

When we speak about "Immunity" what we mean is that you can _still_ get the virus. It will still get inside you. It will still start replicating itself. It will still be possible to infect other people with it. But because you are "immune" - either because you have had the virus before or because of a vaccine - your body deals with it a lot faster which means:

1) The infection leaves your system sooner.
2) You experience less or no symptoms.
3) The quantity of virus you shed to infect others is vastly reduced.

So yes you likely have a natural immunity to the virus. But just like the vaccine that does _not_ mean you can not catch the virus - become infected with the virus - or infect other people with the virus. It just means the changes of any of these things are _significantly_ reduced.

Further - being infected with a virus is not an on/off thing. How sick you get depends on the initial "Viral Load" you are subjected to. So while you might infect others while you have a natural immunity - because the "load" you infect them with is much smaller - the likelyhood you will make them very ill is too. If you infect anyone - it will be less of an infection they are hit with to start off.

This has been shown in humans and animals. For example when studying one virus in chickens only part of a flock needed to be vaccinated for unvaccinated birds to show milder symptoms and produced less virus to infect others. While in Humans the rotavirus vaccine has not stopped the virus spreading but there is a whopping 90% less cases of it resulting in hospital visits.

The Covid vaccines are _no different_ here. Which is why your points against healthy people bothering to get it are skewed as you put it yourself. Like any vaccine or natural immunity if you encounter the virus again - you may get infected but show no symptoms and infect little to no other people while you do so. And even if you do infect others - they are less likely to suffer greatly because of it.

Reducing disease levels in individuals results in an associated decrease in spread and symptoms over a population. And the higher the former number the greater the latter effect.

Capt'n Midnight

moonage wrote: »

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

That smacks of "I'm all right Jack" but over three million people have died and many times that number have suffered.

Which age group is safe ?
Note : COVID much more likely than vaccines to cause blood clots and measured Covid rates are already high enough to outweigh any whole population vaccine risk.


At least three people have fallen from over 8Km during WWII without a parachute and survived. That's about 3 per at a guess 100,000

Hotblack Desiato

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Isn't it mad how all these people who aren't anti-vaxxers seem to hit all the antivax talking points in nearly every post?

You see this all the time. "I'm not religious, but..." (rattles off every catholic church talking point against contraception, abortion or euthanasia.) Etc etc. Fools absolutely nobody.

Former Former Former

volono wrote: »

To the poster former, former. You mentioned herd immunity. This term is a bit nonsensical imo. The Vax shots ,as we've been told do not confer immunity they only mitigate the severity of covid symptoms, yet we all need to take one to achieve "herd immunity".???

This is fundamentally wrong. Covid vaccines absolutely confer immunity. You are a victim of disinformation, or more probably, selective hearing. Everything you have based your "I'm not anti-vax but..." position on is wrong.

volono

If you bothered to read the last page, you'd understand my point, please do, former former

astrofool

volono wrote: »

If you bothered to read the last page, you'd understand my point, please do, former former

Your immune system's efficacy against the disease having contracted SARS-COV2 will be much much lower than an individual who has had the vaccine. You are also more at risk of spreading the virus to vulnerable people with weak immune systems who may still have complications after being vaccinated.

Your reasons for not getting vaccinated are your own but not supported by the data or the science involved in gathering that data.

You may not count yourself as anti-vax, but you are definitely anti-science, which is also a worrying trait in people.

paul71

volono wrote: »

If you bothered to read the last page, you'd understand my point, please do, former former

I don't read ****e about creationist vs evolution, I don't read ****e about climate change denial, I don't read ****e about flat earth. I have a imilar tolerance for ****e from the anti-vax loons.

astrofool

moonage wrote: »

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

Incorrect, this is a complete misunderstanding of what cognitive dissonance means. By ignoring data and science the one suffering from major cognitive dissonance is you.

volono

My mind is changing about the whole thing atm Astro. I got through covid last year so for the last couple of months I've had it in my mind that I don't need one for the reasons I stated. Taxahcruel replied to me on the last page and cleared up alot of misconceptions I actually had, as I said I had those reasons skewed. There's posters here such as the very last poster Paul 71 that are coming across as super aggressive because I'm questioning if I, not anyone else, needs to take a jab. To paul71, I have literally zero knowledge about any of those things. It'd be great to read if posters here could provide links or point me in the right direction where I can read the scientific papers or the agency's providing the data etc. I'm not sure what's wrong with wanting to read stuff like that meself.....I'm a loony supposedly now because of it. All I've heard about is case numbers and vaccine rollout in the media. I don't understand the hostility tbf.

paul71

volono wrote: »

My mind is changing about the whole thing atm Astro. I got through covid last year so for the last couple of months I've had it in my mind that I don't need one for the reasons I stated. Taxahcruel replied to me on the last page and cleared up alot of misconceptions I actually had, as I said I had those reasons skewed. There's posters here such as the very last poster Paul 71 that are coming across as super aggressive because I'm questioning if I, not anyone else, needs to take a jab. To paul71, I have literally zero knowledge about any of those things. It'd be great to read if posters here could provide links or point me in the right direction where I can read the scientific papers or the agency's providing the data etc. I'm not sure what's wrong with wanting to read stuff like that meself.....I'm a loony supposedly now because of it. All I've heard about is case numbers and vaccine rollout in the media. I don't understand the hostility tbf.

The hostility is because anti-vax lies kill innocent children, simples.

volono

I wouldn't know tbf, genuinely would like to read any articles, papers etc etc about covid, case numbers, vaccinations, deaths re:age etc etc. If you could help out in that regard I'd appreciate it paul71

paul71

volono wrote: »

I wouldn't know tbf, genuinely would like to read any articles, papers etc etc about covid, case numbers, vaccinations, deaths re:age etc etc. If you could help out in that regard I'd appreciate it paul71

Talk to a person with a medical degree, there are over 50 million of them on the planet and stop pretending you are qualified to understand medical papers.

volono

So, I'll take that as a No Paul71, that's fine, should of just said so. I could say the same for yourself . I can't imagine they're rocket science though tbf. At least I'm interested in them and other articles , data about it. I can't understand what's wrong in wanting to see, read and learn as much about it as one can. Sure look , everyone's a loony that does , fair enough.

Neyite

volono wrote: »

I wouldn't know tbf, genuinely would like to read any articles, papers etc etc about covid, case numbers, vaccinations, deaths re:age etc etc. If you could help out in that regard I'd appreciate it paul71

One of the key points for suspicion is the speed of a vaccine being created. This article gives a good outline of how it was created so fast. I'm far from scientific so here's my understanding of it, I stand to be corrected on it though.

Basically, corona viruses aren't new. Various ones have been studied for over 50 years. This one is new. But because they studied old or less severe ones, they already had lots of existing data they could compare this novel one against.

Because there already was years of research and data, a lot of the groundwork was done. When a scientist identified the genetic code of Covid 19, instead of what would usually happen with that information being kept in-house to develop something to make money out of, the genetic code was shared to any scientist that wanted it. Something like 4 hours after that code was shared worldwide, some scientist somewhere said "hey, this is pretty identical to the thing I'm working on and have a vaccine in the testing stages for", and in turn, they shared their information so that other scientists could work on tweaking that vaccine for the new corona virus.

In short, scientists worked together in order to adapt a vaccine for another coronavirus to make it work on this one.

astrofool

volono wrote: »

So, I'll take that as a No Paul71, that's fine, should of just said so. I could say the same for yourself . I can't imagine they're rocket science though tbf. At least I'm interested in them and other articles , data about it. I can't understand what's wrong in wanting to see, read and learn as much about it as one can. Sure look , everyone's a loony that does , fair enough.

There's a good article here on getting revaccinated, ultimately you don't know what sort of resistance you've built up so you're weighing up getting infected by a virus that does want to kill you vs. a vaccine that wants to save you, I mean, it's a pretty obvious decision for most people

https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/06/vaccine

The type of vaccines developed aren't new, adenovirus vector has already been used with ebola and mRNA has been in development for over a decade and was being targeted at cancer patients (who have a very weak immune system so the vaccine needs to be very safe to treat them safely).

Vaccines also traditionally aren't a money maker for pharmaceutical companies (even those being distributed today won't drive huge profits) as there is more money in treatments than prevention (hopefully this pandemic changes that and we get more new vaccines in the future). So typically development was slow because the funding was quite low rather than being slow because it takes a long time. With all the funding available it was possible to run multiple parts of the process in parallel and pick a winner rather than one at a time, from a safety perspective, the trials run were among the most comprehensive of any medicine ever, let alone the fact that before you are offered a vaccine, hundreds of millions of people will have already taken it.

It is easy to be scared of these things, but it is an irrational fear and not grounded in the reality we live in (and if you look at the typical anti-vax positions, they are pretty crazy and then funny when they start promoting other concoctions instead).

volono

Thanks neyite, going off to read the article and they've a coronavirushub" on the website with loads of different articles. I don't understand anti-vaxxers myself but maybe I should be in the hesitant category. What's wrong with wanting to be informed about these things imo?. All we've listened to for the last year is misery on the media. I can understand they have to keep the message as simple and clear as possible for the population but it's all this type of information I want to read and know about. I'm all for social distancing, facemasks, the lockdowns..that was a pretty simple message to get across to people and the reasons for such. They should have been doing the same for vaccines. Maybe that's why people are anti vaccines, they're just not informed enough, myself included and I want to know and understand it tbf. I don't think I'm a loony because of it and having questions re: same In that sense I could flip that

---

why are people so gung-ho taking them without knowing. " You'll probably die or kill others if you don't take one", I've personally been told. I didn't even bother to go on to explain that I've already had covid. That's loony to me, ya know.

pearcider

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is not that the term is non-sensical. Rather the issue appears to be that you do not know what the term even means as in how and why we use it. Or what vaccines do or how they work.

Irrelevant. These are mere reports.

“The vaccines where developed quickly and given emergency legislation to be used. They say that they've been vigorously tested etc but by their very nature they've no long term safety data on them yet, although afaik they're in phase 3 trials which wont be finished till the end of the year sometime.”

You ignored this part of the post. I guess because you can’t argue with the facts that we have no long range clinical data for these novel therapies.

Also to suggest the VAERS reporting is irrelevant just shows how arrogant you are.

The real issue for me and many like me is the lack of trust in the HSE and the WHO. These are corrupt and incompetent bodies. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. The WHO has worked with Communist China to cover up covid. The wuhan lab was experimenting with gain of function research into bio weapons (funded by creeps like Fauci). They’ve sidelined good therapies that vastly reduce deaths like ivermectin. Finally you have the globalist freak show called the party of davos posting on Twitter that the lockdowns are good for our cities and would be a good green policy going forward.

The whole thing stinks.

astrofool

pearcider wrote: »

“The vaccines where developed quickly and given emergency legislation to be used. They say that they've been vigorously tested etc but by their very nature they've no long term safety data on them yet, although afaik they're in phase 3 trials which wont be finished till the end of the year sometime.”

You ignored this part of the post. I guess because you can’t argue with the facts that we have no long range clinical data for these novel therapies.

Also to suggest the VAERS reporting is irrelevant just shows how arrogant you are.

The real issue for me and many like me is the lack of trust in the HSE and the WHO. These are corrupt and incompetent bodies. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. The WHO has worked with Communist China to cover up covid. The wuhan lab was experimenting with gain of function research into bio weapons (funded by creeps like Fauci). They’ve sidelined good therapies that vastly reduce deaths like ivermectin. Finally you have the globalist freak show called the party of davos posting on Twitter that the lockdowns are good for our cities and would be a good green policy going forward.

The whole thing stinks.

I think that's an anti-vaxxer B-I-N-G-O.