Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

I think you've demonstrated pretty clearly in your last several posts that you are either not capable, or not willing, to have a point by point discussion, where you either demonstrate where the other person is wrong, or you concede that you were wrong.

I have shown you pretty clearly why the Pfizer vaccine reduced symptomatic Covid by 95% (that means that 95% of the people who would be expected to show Covid symptoms didn't show symptoms), with a similar reduction in cases of 'severe Covid'.

After having all this explained to you, and with the links to the relevant report in my first response to you, you are still arguing about whether it's "Is it contracting virus? Becoming symptomatic?". Can you not understand what it means that 'Symptomatic Covid' was reduced by 95% in the vaccinated group, vs the placebo group? or that only 9 people got Covid symptoms in the vaccinated group, vs 162 in the placebo group? (btw, here is the link to the report again https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/)

You then deflect to an Israeli report on the effectiveness of the vaccine against the delta variant, which says ...

Vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% since June 6, 
the Health Ministry said. At the same time the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing hospitalizations
and serious illness from the coronavirus.

How does that refute anything about the original Pfizer trial, and doesn't it demonstrate continued 93% effectiveness against delta?

Also, what you you mean by "people who can't figure out how google works"? Would you prefer those who make unsubstantiated statements should go unchallenged, and be allowed to dump any nonsense and just say 'google it' and run away?

The quote on the prev line is the post from you that I originally responded to, and it was followed by a dump of information from a Lancet report that you completely misinterpreted (or perhaps you were simply repeating a misinterpretation you read on some other website spreading misinformation)

I would challenge you to either substantiate your views, or else refrain from spreading unsubstantiated misinformation. Also, if you attempt to substantiate your information have the good grace to admit you are wrong when it's explained to you, multiple times, in clear terms, where you are wrong!

Again claims with no source or backing from a conspiracy theorist who has been caught out in dozens of lies and is constantly dishonest and evasive.

This post is yet another deflection because you don't want to concede a point despite Pintofview directly and comprehensively debunking your previous false claims.

Some people will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, people have died from polio, Measles, rubella, mumps and even flu vaccines. So yes...its a sad coincidence.

The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag.

What they don't say is what GerardKeating just explained.

What do you think?

Why is it clear?

You have shown yet again that you are not capable of a point by point discussion, so I'm not going to spend any more time flogging this dead horse

Remember also thaat conspiracy theorists have been telling us that the 4.2 million people killed by covid (and who know how many permanently injured) isn't anything to be concerned about.

But *one* case where the vaccine *Might* be involved? Obviously it's apocalyptic.

It's your subjective personal opinion that an avoidable infectious disease which has killed 4 million people in 15 months is just a "minor thing". Every single country in the world has decided to take it seriously.

So either you have a stupid uninformed opinion, or every government in the world does.

MostAll people I know were concerned about their parents or elderly relatives but according to basically every Covid denier and conspiracy theorist on this forum, "It's just some old people that were going to die anyway"

Edit: and as if to underscore this notion, came across the following article

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/07/30/what-psychology-says-about-covid-non-compliers.html

There are many people in their 50's, 60's and 70's who have had cancer, but are free of it for several years, and are now enjoying a good quality of life. These are just some of the people covid deniers appear to be happy to just let die, along with many other vulnerable people that are living with medical conditions but are able to lead happy and productive lives thanks to modern medicine.

The web sites that the covid deniers get their 'information' from would be amusing if it wasn't so shocking that a percentage of gullible people actually believe them. As the article you linked to says ...

That's one of the key problems, that they don't verify the legitimacy of what they read, or think for themselves. So they're at the mercy of people who have misinterpreted reality, or people who are deliberately distorting or sensationalising reality to get clicks and subscriptions.

I think the next step is a "forensic" approval carried out by some sort of ninja squad.

Well now the FDA is part of the conspiracy.

Previously the vaccines couldn't get FDA approve because... um... reasons?

Should have been done twelve months ago.

People can get exemptions as well because of their beliefs, United are not letting those people go. One set of beliefs are fine (religious) others are not (body autonomy). The second being more relevant in my opinion. The fact that they are going to fire people that have a concern over the vaccine but keep on people that can't take it due to a belief in an imaginary being is a bit ridiculous, no?