Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787919#Comment_119787919

I don't think you are getting the point I am making: There are millions of experts in the world. Within that there will always be individuals or groups of individuals who have fringe or extreme or pseudo-scientific views. Whether it's scientists who are climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdown or whatever. Whether for personal or political reasons.

Lay-people who have extreme views often latch onto those fringe experts. Why? Because they validate their beliefs. So they laud them, but at the expense of ignoring the far wider body of experts or scientists who are stating otherwise. Irrational people aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in validating their beliefs. And they see everything else as another "belief" that threatens their own.

A bit like very religious people see science not as a method, but as another "religion" which threatens their own.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788219#Comment_119788219

I don't think you are getting the point I am making: There are millions of experts in the world. Within that there will always be individuals or groups of individuals who have fringe or extreme or pseudo-scientific views. Whether it's scientists who are climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdown or whatever. Whether for personal or political reasons.

I get exactly the point you are trying to make, and I am not disputing that there will always those with fringe/extreme/pseudo-scientific views. That was the case pre covid, and will be the case post covid.

As far as covid goes it seems like there are an astonishing amount of hitherto highly respected scientists, professors, cardiologists, pathologists etc who have suddenly developed pseudo-scientific views.

Which goes back to my point that it is indeed telling that we don't hear so much of the anti-vax crazies who were so vocal pre covid. Back then they were telling whoever would listen vaccines were poison/mind-control or whatever.

Now however the anti-vax anti-science brigade include Harvard/Oxford epidemiologists and vaccine safety consultants who are trying to tell whoever will listen that perhaps mass vaccination for all is counterproductive, and maybe targeting the most vulnerable is a better idea and that there is no case for mandating vaccines for children who have a 0.0003% fatality rate etc etc. This is particularly true of a vaccine that does not prevent transmission or infection.

It is little wonder now that they are on the anti-science side of the debate, their views drown out their predecessors.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788181#Comment_119788181

Another thing the Barrington Declaration is silent on. How many people need to shield. How are multi-generational households supposed to function. How long would they have to shield for.

Again have you actually read it? They are not silent on multi-generational households:

A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Yes, they don't specify an exact suite of measures, they simply say this is a possible approach and the implementation is "well within the scope and capability of public health professionals". Seems like a perfectly reasonable comment.

I didn't address the rest of your points here, not because I am trying to dodge them, but because getting involved in what would have happened r not if a different approach had be taken is totally pointless. Neither us know the answer to that.

My issue with this whole subject is not so much whether or not it is/was the correct strategy, but I cannot see what it is about the text of this declaration that is deemed to be so anti-science and required "a quick and devastating published takedown."

For example:

"The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

For example what makes "Focused Protection" anti-science yet our own policy of the elderly and vulnerable "cocooning" was sound public health advice?

It also advocates reopening schools for in person teaching. Why is this anti-science yet when we were told it was safe for our kids to go school because the risks to their education were greater than the risks of covid because they didn't get severely ill or transmit the disease, this was sound public health advice?

What's the difference?

snowcat

ICU figures up to 19 nearly 500 in hospital. One of the most vaxxed populations on the planet. What has gone wrong?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788823#Comment_119788823

Perhaps the virus is more "virulent" that some people give it credit for

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788735#Comment_119788735

Where is the specific proposal for multi-generational households? There isn't one. So yes, they are silent on how multi-generational households would cope in this regime. They are supposed to be the experts, yet their expertise is basically... well the professionals who currently advocate restrictions could come up with a different set of measures... we just don't know what they are, or how effective they would be, or what their drawbacks would be but .... lockdowns bad.

That is not science.

No estimate is provided for how long it would take to achieve herd immunity... how long infection immunity would last.

No estimate is provided for the additional deaths, severe cases, long covid in the 'less vulnerable' groups - both in terms of additional burden on hospital care and in life changing events.

Here is another humdinger from this piece of nonsense: "By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors"

How are the staff meant to get this immunity? How is the nursing home to be staffed during this process? What about essential staff that don't have immunity? How many of the staff can we expect to get serious covid or long covid during this process?

This was written in October 2020, well before we had rapid testing... so how many PCRs and how fast would they be needed. How many cases will be missed in the gap between test and result.

There is a world of difference between schools open in a society under restrictions, and schools open in a society where covid is running rampant.

So the schools are open. What about multi-generational households where there is a vulnerable person living? What about the children of healthcare workers?

Schools were shut during periods of the worst outbreaks.

Where was it said children didn't transmit the disease? It was said they were less likely. And you are muddying the waters on 'children', are you talking about 6 year olds or 16 year olds? The Declaration also calls for the re-opening of Universities, which are not populated by children.

It is not science to just say, re-open the schools. The schools were re-opened based on an assessment of their risk of spread versus the risks to education. That is science.

"Focused Protection", in comparison to the actual measures deployed, is a meaningless slogan, backed up by nothing.

So yes, it is just fantasy\aspirational nonsense. It is a political statement. It is not science.

That is not just my opinion:

The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous."

“If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifices lives... The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way."

Dozens of public health groups, experts blast ‘herd immunity’ strategy backed by White House | The Hill

As an association of more than 12,000 frontline infectious diseases scientists, physicians, public health experts, and other health professionals, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and its HIV Medicine Association strongly denounce the “declaration,” released without data or evidence, that states this crisis can be controlled in the absence of critical public health measures.

“Herd Immunity” is Not an Answer to a Pandemic (idsociety.org)

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788873#Comment_119788873

Yes but if its more virulent why are the unvaxxed countries not seeing a spike in hospitalisations and funerals.

snowcat

We should really be the poster boys of what vaccination can do. Not going into the depths of another wave while the unvaxxed countries seem to be coping ok.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788920#Comment_119788920

From the text:

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

As you say it was written in October 2020, when still nobody knew how long the vaccine development would take, and certainly it was not expected by the end of that year.

The whole point of their proposal was instead of locking down and shielding absolutely everybody from the virus, it was better to start building up as much immunity as possible in the population whilst we waited for a vaccine - and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine

The acceptable science at the time was we wait for the vaccine to get herd immunity, and reduce transmission as much as possible while we wait.

Oddly enough, shortly after the vaccine was rolled out, all ambitions and talk of herd immunity were shelved.

Now two years on we are living and coping with covid back to something like normal - and the acceptable science now says that this is thanks to a high level population wide immunity, from a combination of previous infection and vaccines.

Or to put it another way we've built up immunity in the population assisted by but not dependent on a vaccine.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787887#Comment_119787887

The fact they are engaging in an anti-science tactic like this.

Why are they using an open letter format where they cannot actually verify if the people signing are actually experts? Or aren't cartoon characters?

(Gonna predict the usual dodge of "you'd have to ask them" etc. Or just outright ignoring the question.)

The folks behind AE9/11's petition are also experts in their fields who are likewise qualified and have impressive sounding resumes. This doesn't prevent them from being anti-science.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788920#Comment_119788920

Also we have to keep in mind that conspiracy theorists have been constantly telling us that there hasn't been enough time to fully evaluate the safety of the vaccine.

Yet, this doesn't seem to apply to the virus. For some reason it's perfectly ok for them to dismiss the possibility that there might be unknown effects of the virus yet to be identified and to assume that there's no danger in being infected since only a "pittance" of 6 million people died.

This goes doubly so since this declaration was made with even less time to study the virus.

Dohnjoe

A lot of hamster-wheel style nitpicking going on here.

Been awhile since we've had any hint of a conspiracy, anything at all credible linked to the vaccines?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789568#Comment_119789568

None. There's only vague hints at them such as the notion that research that puts the vaccines into a bad light is being suppressed while positive research that is fraudulent is allowed to be published.

None of out resident antivaxxers want to directly state these conspiracy beliefs because they understand that it will rob them of any credibility with readers not already familiar with them.

They also understand that the more extreme they admit their belief is the harder it will be for them to support each other.

So in the name of spread vaccine misinformation any discussion of conspiracy theories is best avoided.

I remember having these very same conversations this time last year..

Could be a bad winter again..

Better roll out another variant to explain the injections not working again..

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789625#Comment_119789625

The virus mutates and evolves, there have been multiple strains already, I have no doubt you are aware of them.

Genuine question, why do you think we have annual boosters for one virus, while for others generally just one jab suffices?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789625#Comment_119789625

We remember having this conversation 10 years ago when conspiracy theorists were telling us all this same stuff about the swine flu.

At least then people were willing to be direct about the stuff they believed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789652#Comment_119789652

Because there's never been a vaccine that works for a coronavirus..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789689#Comment_119789689

And they only paid out damages for swine flu vaccine injuries last year..

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789701#Comment_119789701

But the conspiracies weren't "there would be a handful of injuries" were they.

Is that the extent of the conspiracy theory now?

moonage

There seems to be a lot of regret among those who succumbed to the needlecraft and none among the purebloods.

Most of the posters on this thread are fanatical pro-covid-vaxxers but I suspect, deep down, lots of them feel rather foolish and feel they've been duped. You have to be bonkers if you think it was a good idea trying to get every man, woman and child needlecrafted during a pseudopandemic with an undertested and potentially dangerous "treatment".

It must be galling for the fanatical pro-vaxxers and everyone else to know that public health agencies, governments and the media conspired to hide the fact that the needlecraft didn't stop transmission.

From an Australian poll:

"More than half of respondents either said they regret getting vaccinated, or were unvaccinated and happy with their decision.

Only 35 per cent out of more than 45,000 people said they were vaccinated and would make the same decision again.

Not a single person said they were unvaccinated and regret the decision."

Covid poll Australia: Masks, vaccines, lockdowns, cases, deaths and more | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

sydthebeat

^

Hahaha

I can see why the resident loony conspiracy theorists here want this place to be a haven for fictional writing.

You've the making of a tweeny sci Fi novel there

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789935#Comment_119789935

Still talking about your stitching classes? I can see you haven’t improved. Usually practice improves people’s techniques, but there are those that just can be helped no matter how much they love stitching. They just will never understand anything about it.

However, as a plant to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous you are doing a great job. Your monthly salary should be in your account by COB on Friday.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789700#Comment_119789700

There's one vaccine that works for Yellow Fever

However with the flu vaccine we need annual booster shots

This isn't a trick question, do you know why that is?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789935#Comment_119789935

If you are vaccinated you are less likely to die from Covid. The older you get the more risk there is. If you are quite young, I wouldn't worry about it too much, but if you are middle aged and older, then you are gambling.

People with underlying conditions and the elderly are most at risk. Straightforward question, would you convince elderly relatives of yours not to get jabbed?

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789935#Comment_119789935

"Not a single person said they were unvaccinated and regret the decision."

Did they interview the dead people?

Speaking of, I thought all the vaccinated were supposed to be dead by now? 4 billion people dead or something was the goal

Big Bag of Chips

@moonage you have been warned before about your use of childish language.

Do not post in this thread again

hometruths

Apparently vaccine effectiveness (against hospitalisation) is improved by physical exercise.

This is the stunning revelation in a study recently published in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/09/27/bjsports-2022-105734

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790764#Comment_119790764

I thought it was the unvaxxed were meant to be dead by now. Seems no one was right. Except the purveyors.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119793462#Comment_119793462

Again.

Over 6 million people died from the virus.

It has been shown that millions more would have died if the vaccines didn't exist.

You guys have claimed that the vaccines were killing thousands of people a week. You claimed the death toll for the vaccine could be in the millions.

You have provided nothing to support this claim and seem to have abandoned it and want to pretend it never happened.

lawred2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119793151#Comment_119793151

In other news, water is wet.

That's parody level stuff.