Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1171172174176177199

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Maxpfizer


    You say that like it's a huge number!

    It's about 0.0004% of the worlds population. And this trial was done when exactly? Last month, couple of months ago?


    Who says whatever terrible side effect doesn't only manifest after 6 months, or 2 years, or only effects you when you go on to catch chickenpox after getting it, or any number of things. Look at thalidomide for example.


    There is absolutely no reason to be assuming this thing is safe. None whatsoever!

    Reading up on Ebola vaccines it does seem like 30k would be around an acceptable amount for a trial.

    I think for most of us there will be 10s of millions of people vaccinated worldwide before we are even eligible so we'll have a 6 months to a year window to see if it all goes horribly wrong in the short term.

    Long term? Who really knows. It should be fine but there are certainly historical examples of medical disasters so we just wait and see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    their phase 3 trial started in october. and 30,000 is a big trial. thalidomide was 50+ years ago and the drug is still in. science has improved in the meantime.

    It has of course, and i'm in no way doubting that this thing is well intentioned, but there is also no getting away from the fact that it was extremely rushed, or from the fact that there's no substitute for time.

    There's just no reason to be assuming this is safe, i'm sure every effort has been taken to make it as safe, but only time will tell definitively. Are moderna so sure of it's safety that they'll waive any indemnity - are they fúck. If they aren't 100% sure, why in the name of god should i be? Of course there are risks associated with this thing!

    In any case, there's any number of people who would take this tomorrow if it means they can drink pints, or go on holidays and i for one am happy enough to hang back and see what, if anything, it does to them first.

    That's the sensible course of action in my book.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    You say that like it's a huge number!

    It's about 0.0004% of the worlds population. And this trial was done when exactly? Last month, couple of months ago?


    Who says whatever terrible side effect doesn't only manifest after 6 months, or 2 years, or only effects you when you go on to catch chickenpox after getting it, or any number of things. Look at thalidomide for example.


    There is absolutely no reason to be assuming this thing is safe. None whatsoever!

    So.... do tell us what size trial you'd recommend, and what your expected outcome probabilities (p0, p1,...) based on the size you're suggesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    their phase 3 trial started in october. and 30,000 is a big trial. thalidomide was 50+ years ago and the drug is still in. science has improved in the meantime.


    30,000 is a drop in the ocean. Usage is the real trial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    At the end of the day no one knows the long term effects of these vaccines - no one knows !!

    not even the "scientists" on here ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    30,000 is a drop in the ocean. Usage is the real trial.

    So, you're making it up as you go along. Good to know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,173 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    30,000 is a drop in the ocean. Usage is the real trial.
    rubbish


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Igotadose wrote: »
    So.... do tell us what size trial you'd recommend, and what your expected outcome probabilities (p0, p1,...) based on the size you're suggesting.


    I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be rolled out at his stage, time is of the essence, i'm just saying i'll stand more towards the back of line.



    I have no problem with you taking it straight after dinner!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,788 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    There's just no reason to be assuming this is safe, i'm sure every effort has been taken to make it as safe, but only time will tell definitively. Are moderna so sure of it's safety that they'll waive any indemnity - are they fúck. If they aren't 100% sure, why in the name of god should i be? Of course there are risks associated with this thing!

    As far as I know this doesn't exist with any vaccine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Tell us of the long term safety trials that have been done with any of these vaccines ???


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Tell us of the long term safety trials that have been done with any of these vaccines ???

    Why not google it?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,788 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Anti-vaxxers: "Vaccines don't work"
    Conspiracy theorists: "Bill Gates, depopulate the planet, Mark of the Beast, microchips, and vaccines don't work"
    On-the-fence anti-vaxxers: "I'm just worried about the safety of vaccines, appeal to motive, Big Pharma, Gardasil, can we really trust the experts"

    All three always seeking validation from each other.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I hope the people obsessing over imaginary microchips don't own a smartphone.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith





  • It has of course, and i'm in no way doubting that this thing is well intentioned, but there is also no getting away from the fact that it was extremely rushed, or from the fact that there's no substitute for time.

    There's just no reason to be assuming this is safe, i'm sure every effort has been taken to make it as safe, but only time will tell definitively. Are moderna so sure of it's safety that they'll waive any indemnity - are they fúck. If they aren't 100% sure, why in the name of god should i be? Of course there are risks associated with this thing!

    In any case, there's any number of people who would take this tomorrow if it means they can drink pints, or go on holidays and i for one am happy enough to hang back and see what, if anything, it does to them first.

    That's the sensible course of action in my book.

    Because, as of yet, there's no such thing as a 100% effective vaccine. The more people that get vaccinated the better as the virus has less places to hide.

    There are risks associated with taking Calpol Infant.

    This is genuinely primary school science.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Anti-vaxxers: "Vaccines don't work"
    Conspiracy theorists: "Bill Gates, depopulate the planet, Mark of the Beast, microchips, and vaccines don't work"
    On-the-fence anti-vaxxers: "I'm just worried about the safety of vaccines, appeal to motive, Big Pharma, Gardasil, can we really trust the experts"

    All three always seeking validation from each other.

    Unless you think the third group is purely a cover for the disingenuous then you are mad to throw out insults.

    The government will have leaflets, TV adverts etc. to convince such people.

    Threads like this do nothing, they are a hindrance by presenting a medical issue as if it were a partisan political issue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Maxpfizer


    growleaves wrote: »
    Unless you think the third group is purely a cover for the disingenuous then you are mad to throw out insults.

    The government will have leaflets, TV adverts etc. to convince such people.

    Threads like this do nothing, they are a hindrance by presenting a medical issue as if it were a partisan political issue.

    I think threads like this do demonstrate that a lot of people are willing to disregard how we've all been raised on things like consent when it comes to an issue we don't agree with others on.

    I would find myself stumped when anti-vaxxers pull the "my body, my choice" card. Even if I know they are being disingenuous I don't really have a comeback for the argument.

    It's not like you can reasonably turn round and say "ha, we will just force you to consent so now what are you gonna do".

    It's like I understand that the person doesn't want to be vaccinated for whatever reason. I understand that it's not cool to force people to do things that they don't want to do. Yet, I am also thinking "yeah but if we just deny them access to social services and essential needs then they'll be forced to do it".

    As you say, the government will have leaflets and ads etc and you're going to have experts who will tell us why it's a good idea to get vaccinated.

    This will immediately be undone by people who don't know how to accept that a section of the population will not consent. So they'll try to outdo each other with "witty" comments putting down idiotic and stupid anti vaxxers and equate them with fascists (which is a bit specific and a bit weird) and now we've really made a mountain out of a molehill.

    You'd have to think that willingness to take the vaccine will be extremely high. Once we get through the first 6 months of so of vaccinating those who need it the most then the stragglers will probably be even more willing.

    Yet we are still going to have the usual smug gits who need to make a song and dance about the small percentage of people who are not willing to be vaccinated. Don't let them travel! Take away their benefits! They are fascists! Etc. Etc.

    The main thing I would like to see us do is not allow the anti-vax movement to grow any more than it already has been growing. I don't see how "well we'll just shame you into consenting by telling the world how dumb you are" is an appropriate response to any of this. I don't see how that doesn't just galvanize the entire movement.

    We need to accept that some people are not going to consent to being vaccinated because they feel like it's not safe or not worth the risk or whatever. Then we need to see if we can reassure and inform and get them on board.

    The best thing is we have months ahead of us to do that.
    The UK reckons they will have done 20 million vaccinations by summer.
    So I guess we will probably go at about the same rate as they will.
    Meaning 6 months or so from now we are probably only going to have a third of the country vaccinated.

    Nah. Let's insult them and shame them and come up with the most uncharitable strawmen and tear them down. That'll work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    I think threads like this do demonstrate that a lot of people are willing to disregard how we've all been raised on things like consent when it comes to an issue we don't agree with others on.

    Not this one. It's about two "sides" where one is, "Vaccines are bad because I say so," and another patiently (at least for awhile) stating the facts that prove vaccines are the most successful form of medication invented by humans for the benefit for humanity.

    Eventually, the anti-anti-vax side loses patience when the "I don't care what you say I am going to shout piercingly and call you names" like our most recent contributor Howeird, who has no data, not facts, and basically slings insults.

    Don't come here if you're looking for pity for spouting off against science and fact. Come here with data to debate. Otherwise, f*ck off to Facebook and the threatening, violent anti-vax world that exists there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,978 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    growleaves wrote: »
    Unless you think the third group is purely a cover for the disingenuous then you are mad to throw out insults.

    The government will have leaflets, TV adverts etc. to convince such people.

    Threads like this do nothing, they are a hindrance by presenting a medical issue as if it were a partisan political issue.

    The thing is, these people won't believe it. They take their "medical advice" from discredited, debunked "experts" who's only outlet is youtube and facebook and other social media because every other respectable avenue of information requires proof and facts which these do not have.

    So there is no convincing them. Anti-vaxxers, to me are like flat-earthers except that they are dangerous to society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Maxpfizer


    The thing is, these people won't believe it. They take their "medical advice" from discredited, debunked "experts" who's only outlet is youtube and facebook and other social media because every other respectable avenue of information requires proof and facts which these do not have.

    So there is no convincing them. Anti-vaxxers, to me are like flat-earthers except that they are dangerous to society.

    Really?

    This thread started in August 2017.

    What actual damage have Anti-vaxxers done to society in that time period?

    What damage do you think they'll do when the Covid vaccines are fully rolled out by the end of next year?

    You might get, what, 5% of Ireland refusing the vaccines because of legitimately daft anti-vax views? If that were the case how many cases or deaths would we be likely to attribute to them?

    The anti-lockdown protests were relatively small (I think BLM drew a bigger crowd, during a pandemic of course) and for sure not all of those in attendance would be anti-vax. Though it would be safe to assume that most anti-vax would be coming from that crowd.

    Yes, I am asking for proof and facts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Maxpfizer


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Not this one. It's about two "sides" where one is, "Vaccines are bad because I say so," and another patiently (at least for awhile) stating the facts that prove vaccines are the most successful form of medication invented by humans for the benefit for humanity.

    Eventually, the anti-anti-vax side loses patience when the "I don't care what you say I am going to shout piercingly and call you names" like our most recent contributor Howeird, who has no data, not facts, and basically slings insults.

    Don't come here if you're looking for pity for spouting off against science and fact. Come here with data to debate. Otherwise, f*ck off to Facebook and the threatening, violent anti-vax world that exists there.

    I'm really hoping here that "Howeird" is an insult term for "Howard" that you've used in the same sentence where you moan about people throwing insults. :D

    Have we really had anti-vax violence in Ireland? Disappointing if true.

    Sometimes I can't help feeling like we import a lot of American political drama and then just run with it. I would not have know that there was a lot of anti-vax sentiment in Ireland that results in violence.

    I do know people who feel that they don't want to vaccinate their kids and yes that comes from a mistrust of major companies and government and just anything that they don't see as natural. That's a very small number of people, surely?

    Problem there is that you can't really argue that major corporations have never gotten up to some dodgy and corrupt dealings and the Irish government are not exactly squeaky clean either.

    I definitely wouldn't want to spout off against "science and fact". That would be terrible.

    We'll see how things shake out IN IRELAND with the COVID vaccine but I'd like to imagine that the vast majority will get vaccinated and those that don't won't need to because we'll have this whole thing under control anyway. I wouldn't have much confidence in America though.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm not concerned about microchips, or 5G receivers so the man can reprogram my mind or any of that bull****.



    But why would you possibly assume that something rushed through at breakneck speed would be perfectly safe? That's reckless to say the least. There are side effects to every medicine, some of which only become apparent over time.



    Maybe they test this on 1000 people and they are all fine, but that's because none of them we're taking "X" at the time, or had a certain medical condition, if you do happen to take it with "X" or have condition "Y" you die a horrible excruciating death, or maybe just get an itchy flute - who knows. Only volume and time will tell things like that.



    And with that in mind...i'll wait, thanks all the same.

    Just to point out, there's no indication of anything being rushed through. A lot of processes have been put in parallel to optimise trials. Large scale trials have occurred. This is more an example of how efficiently something can be done when there's the interest and money to do so. You can wait away but I also think it's reasonable that countries can refuse you entry if you're not vaccinated. Same for businesses.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Maxpfizer wrote: »
    .

    Yes, I am asking for proof and facts.
    https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/vaccinepreventable/measles/publications/annualreportsonmeaslesinireland/Measles%20-%20Annual%20Summary%202018.pdf

    Quoting:

    "There were 76 measles cases (1.6/100,000) in 2018 compared to 25 in 2017 and 43 cases
    in 2016 (figure 1). Seventy-three cases in 2018 were classified as confirmed, two were
    classified as probable and one was classified as possible. There were five outbreaks with a
    total of 67 cases and an additional two pairs of linked cases.
    ...
    The majority were unvaccinated"

    ---

    Pertussis also is a vaccine-preventable illness that, fortunately, hasn't ticked up recently in Ireland though the vaccine uptake after 2012 has slowed some. And remember, infants most prone to death from pertussis, can't be vaccinated, it's the older children and adults around them that must be vaccinated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,788 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Maxpfizer wrote: »

    We need to accept that some people are not going to consent to being vaccinated because they feel like it's not safe or not worth the risk or whatever. Then we need to see if we can reassure and inform and get them on board.

    Right, there are countless posts in this thread of people reassuring and informing. Doesn't have the slightest impact. Have you ever debated with an anti-vaxxer, a flat-earther, a moon landing hoaxer? you are never going to "get through" to them with information and reassurance. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,483 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    30,000 is a drop in the ocean. Usage is the real trial.

    Which is why we have phase IV trials, to keep an eye on everyone. Every medication in the modern world goes through this, and several commonly used medicines from previous eras would not be approved today if they were starting from scratch or would be prescription only.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Right, there are countless posts in this thread of people reassuring and informing. Doesn't have the slightest impact. Have you ever debated with an anti-vaxxer, a flat-earther, a moon landing hoaxer? you are never going to "get through" to them with information and reassurance. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

    Mark Twain was right. Best to ignore and move on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,788 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    YFlyer wrote: »
    Mark Twain was right. Best to ignore and move on.

    Indeed, but the ignoring part hasn't worked so well, quite the contrary, the problem has festered and only gotten worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10 dodge challenger


    Maxpfizer wrote: »

    What actual damage have Anti-vaxxers done to society in that time period?


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/07/colorado-boy-dies-flu-anti-vaccine-facebook-groups


    First result in google. I'd say the 4 year old would argue that some damage has been done


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Right, there are countless posts in this thread of people reassuring and informing. Doesn't have the slightest impact. Have you ever debated with an anti-vaxxer, a flat-earther, a moon landing hoaxer? you are never going to "get through" to them with information and reassurance. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

    They're not hear to debate. They're here to push disinformation. That's it.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/07/colorado-boy-dies-flu-anti-vaccine-facebook-groups


    First result in google. I'd say the 4 year old would argue that some damage has been done

    You have parents refusing vitamin k for their newborn kids because of something that they read on Facebook and "they care about their kids health".

    Measles is making a huge comeback because of scrotes pushing their bs and idiots believing them.

    A lot of them also tend to fill the arsehole bingo card when discussing other topics that a lot of grifters use as bait for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭Hego Damask


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Right, there are countless posts in this thread of people reassuring and informing. Doesn't have the slightest impact. Have you ever debated with an anti-vaxxer, a flat-earther, a moon landing hoaxer? you are never going to "get through" to them with information and reassurance. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

    So if one is pro vaccines that have been around a long time , but a bit cautious of this brand new vaccine that has no long term studies - they are the same as a flat earther ? or a moon landing hoaxer ?

    this is why the left are losing support, this extreme straw manning sh1t..


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement