Anti-vaxxers

Hotblack Desiato · 03-12-2020 1:34am

You're the one who is strawmanning there. Dohnjoe said anti-vaxxers, not people with concerns who are open to evidence.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2020 9:14am

Hello 2D Person Below wrote: »

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.

Yes there are, risks we are all aware of, partially because of trials but also of years of widespread use. Look at the leaflet in the box of calpol infant and it will list side effects graded @ 1/1000, 1/100,000, 1/1,000,000 and so on.

Are you going to argue that you can ascertain a 1 in 100 thousand or a 1 in a million risk from a trial size of 30,000? Primary school science is it?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I have no problem with that. You can streamline processes and throw resources at a problem to expedite things, but to properly see how something works there is just no substitute for time.
I am not in any way arguing that it is wrong to roll out these vaccines, my point is that people rushing to declare them safe as houses are being premature and i've yet to see anyone present me with anything to suggest otherwise. If you rush to the top of the que you are taking it on faith - the risks may be small, but to say they just aren't there is plain wrong.

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

That's exactly my point. Only very large numbers and time will tell the whole story. 30,000 people for a couple of months is neither of those things.

Mr. CooL ICE · 03-12-2020 10:09am

Hego Damask wrote: »

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..

Wtf has "the left" got to do with this?

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 10:11am

Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »

Wtf has "the left" got to do with this?

nothing but you have to have your bogeyman

CramCycle · 03-12-2020 11:01am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are you going to argue that you can ascertain a 1 in 100 thousand or a 1 in a million risk from a trial size of 30,000? Primary school science is it?

You'd love statistics, it really depends on the make up of that 30,000 but it is unlikely not to be statistically significant, many trials for drugs are far smaller than this.

Within the 30,000 you would have to look at the diversity of the population tested but its pretty decent.

I have no problem with that. You can streamline processes and throw resources at a problem to expedite things, but to properly see how something works there is just no substitute for time.

And the time you are on about is 4 to 5 years realistically. Two of the major vaccines are not the vaccines we know over the past however many years. Their ingredients are different and on paper, are far safer once we have tested on a diverse population, with the way this vaccine works, most reactions will be short lived (although sore as f*ck) for 24 to 48 hours. The long term effects will not be known for years but based on what it is supposed to be doing, our bodies have been doing the same thing for similar proteins for years without issue. If there was to be a massive reaction to it that was negative, based on how it works, it would most likely be sooner rather than later but there is nothing wrong with trepidation, I was the same myself for various things over the years, and as such, I accepted for certain health conditions my quality of life would not be as good, nor would I likely live as long. So no, if people don't want to take it for awhile, that is 100% fine, but those people must accept there should be a related, albeit minor cost. This might be accepting that until infection rates are low enough, they must continue to behave like we are at level 3 or above for example, or that they cannot holiday abroad for a period of time and so on. Nothing major and in my opinion, perfectly acceptable.

I am not in any way arguing that it is wrong to roll out these vaccines, my point is that people rushing to declare them safe as houses are being premature and i've yet to see anyone present me with anything to suggest otherwise. If you rush to the top of the que you are taking it on faith - the risks may be small, but to say they just aren't there is plain wrong.

Someone has to be first, and some one will always have to be last. There are adverse reactions to the vaccine but they are a small number and so far short lived, no one is hiding that despite what some people claim. There might be long term affects, it would appear unlikely but it is not impossible, and if you wish to be cautious, that is absolutely fine, but as I said, you should accept some restrictions in that regard if you wish to be.

That's exactly my point. Only very large numbers and time will tell the whole story. 30,000 people for a couple of months is neither of those things.

It is a large study, that is growing daily. It is a reasonable amount of time for the beginning of the study, its not like they are rolling it out 7 days after the first test.

it will be interesting to see all the data when it comes out.

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 11:08am

CramCycle wrote: »

You'd love statistics, it really depends on the make up of that 30,000 but it is unlikely not to be statistically significant, many trials for drugs are far smaller than this.

Within the 30,000 you would have to look at the diversity of the population tested but its pretty decent.

The Moderna Phase 3 trial was very diverse
https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Article/2020/10/23/Moderna-signals-diversity-of-its-US-COVID-19-vaccine-trial-cohort

Hotblack Desiato · 03-12-2020 11:22am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If you rush to the top of the que you are taking it on faith - the risks may be small, but to say they just aren't there is plain wrong.

As has already been pointed out to you, you won't be rushing to the front of any queue. Unless you are in a high risk group you will be well down the queue, and it will be offered to you only when people higher risk than you have already been offered it.

Secondly, you are ignoring the risk of not taking it. You are taking it on faith that either you won't catch it, or that if you do the consequences will be minor. That will probably turn out to be a correct assumption, but it may not.

Thirdly if everyone took this attitude, we would have no drugs at all never mind vaccines.

storker · 03-12-2020 11:28am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And there is a doctor who believes that a Covid vaccination will include a secret microchip implant, and that implant will connect to a neural A.I. network. Likewise, there's a doctor with a PhD in materials science who believes the 9/11 towers were zapped by some energy weapon and has even written a book about it.

Andrew Wakefield was a doctor too.

storker · 03-12-2020 11:33am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But why would you possibly assume that something rushed through at breakneck speed would be perfectly safe? That's reckless to say the least.

It isn't. Something being delivered quickly does not mean it was "rushed". Anti-vaxxers seem to love this word, with its connotations of haste and carelessness.

A lot of the spadework for this vaccine had already been done and resources have been thrown at it like never before. That's why it's here already, and not because it was just thrown together any old how.

storker · 03-12-2020 11:36am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

Of course they do - they're just very picky about which bits of science they don't trust. :rolleyes:

storker · 03-12-2020 11:38am

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.

"You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to argue themselves into." as the saying goes.

ancapailldorcha · 03-12-2020 11:39am

storker wrote: »

It isn't. Something being delivered quickly does not mean it was "rushed". Anti-vaxxers seem to love this word, with it's connotations of haste and carelessness.

A lot of the spadework for this vaccine had already been done and resources have been thrown at it like never before. That's why it's here already, and not because it was just thrown together any old how.

Agreed. This is a global pandemic and it has been imperative for all nations to develop a vaccine, test it and launch it as soon as possible. All that's happened is that this vaccine has received more time, money and human endeavour than any other invention in history and it was somehow done in just over half a year.

Regulators will scrupulously pour over the data to make sure everything's ok and then it'll be released. Why some people want to replace the accountability that this process provides with internet grifters is beyond me.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2020 11:39am

CramCycle wrote: »

You'd love statistics, it really depends on the make up of that 30,000 but it is unlikely not to be statistically significant, many trials for drugs are far smaller than this.

Within the 30,000 you would have to look at the diversity of the population tested but its pretty decent.

I get the statistics. I'm sure a lot of drugs do come to market with much lower trial sizes, but the target market for those drugs is likely a very small fraction of what were talking about here. The fact remains a sample of 30,000 (which may be quite large in terms of a trial) however diverse, could very easily completely miss a 1/100,000 reaction, it's unlikely but not entirely impossible that it could miss a 1/10,000 reaction.
Conversely it could catch these reactions and we are as of now extrapolating that they are more common than in reality - but the fact remains, no matter what way it is dressed up that right now, nobody knows for sure.

ancapailldorcha · 03-12-2020 11:41am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I get the statistics. I'm sure a lot of drugs do come to market with much lower trial sizes, but the target market for those drugs is likely a very small fraction of what were talking about here. The fact remains a sample of 30,000 (which may be quite large in terms of a trial) however diverse, could very easily completely miss a 1/100,000 reaction, it's unlikely but not entirely impossible that it could miss a 1/10,000 reaction.
Conversely it could catch these reactions and we are as of now extrapolating that they are more common than in reality - but the fact remains, no matter what way it is dressed up that right now, nobody knows for sure.

Nobody knows anything for sure but in this instance, what's the alternative? Will the public accept more years of lockdown while an arbitrary number of people are tested? How many would be sufficient do you think and how many years of pharmacovigilance will be adequate for you to think it's safe to get?

Hulk Hands · 03-12-2020 11:59am

Hego Damask wrote: »

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..

That poster is one of 3 posters that spend all their time on the site in the conspiracy forum or threads, debunking conspiracies.

Imagine that being your only hobby. Going onto forums every day, telling apparent crackpot conspiracy theorists that they are indeed crackpots, over and over and over

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 12:03pm

Hulk Hands wrote: »

That poster is one of 3 posters that spend all their time on the site in the conspiracy forum or threads, debunking conspiracies.

Imagine that being your only hobby. Going onto forums every day, telling apparent crackpot conspiracy theorists that they are indeed crackpots, over and over and over

imagine believing that Bill Gates wants to put a chip in you via a mandatory vaccine for Covid.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-12-2020 12:10pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

imagine believing that Bill Gates wants to put a chip in you via a mandatory vaccine for Covid.

Or that 99.9% of scientists are in on a plan to do this, or governments place chemicals in planes to be released over population centers, then we have flat earth, 9-11 (magic mirrors and hologram planes lol) and so on so forth.

Hulk Hands · 03-12-2020 12:17pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

imagine believing that Bill Gates wants to put a chip in you via a mandatory vaccine for Covid.

I don't believe any of that whatsoever. What does that have to do with what I posted?

bb1234567 · 03-12-2020 12:18pm

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.

It's important not to be so dismissive of these concerns. Mocking only drives a wedge and alienates this group who will feel insulted , demeaned and alienated. The other two groups mentioned will gladly step in to fill that void created.

It is understandable to have concerns over this very unexpected and rapid pace of vaccination distribution, not everyone is completely trusting of government intentions and these fears should be allayed through teaching and patient understanding, definitely not talking down to them like children. Most of us know nothing about vaccines and lots of people are not intelligent, I'm not saying this in a pejorative sense, but a lot of the population will have difficulty deciphering studies and journal articles and such that are posted on here which as far as I can see are the main way those knowledgable have sourced quality evidence ont he vaccine ths far. Nonetheless the effects of the vaccine and other potential related issues need to be made extremely clear and so far the government have not set up any campaign to educate the population on these issues in a clear and transparent and easily comprehended way. This is unfortunately leading many to search for questionable alternative sources of information to educate themselves.

Mr. CooL ICE · 03-12-2020 12:21pm

Hulk Hands wrote: »

That poster is one of 3 posters that spend all their time on the site in the conspiracy forum or threads, debunking conspiracies.

Imagine that being your only hobby. Going onto forums every day, telling apparent crackpot conspiracy theorists that they are indeed crackpots, over and over and over

Well, how else do you combat disinformation?

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 12:26pm

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I don't believe any of that whatsoever. What does that have to do with what I posted?

everything

ancapailldorcha · 03-12-2020 12:30pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

It's important not to be so dismissive of these concerns. Mocking only drives a wedge and alienates this group who will feel insulted , demeaned and alienated. The other two groups mentioned will gladly step in to fill that void created.

It is understandable to have concerns over this very unexpected and rapid pace of vaccination distribution, not everyone is completely trusting of government intentions and these fears should be allayed through teaching and patient understanding, definitely not talking down to them like children. Most of us know nothing about vaccines and lots of people are not intelligent, I'm not saying this in a pejorative sense, but a lot of the population will have difficulty deciphering studies and journal articles and such that are posted on here which as far as I can see are the main way those knowledgable have sourced quality evidence ont he vaccine ths far. Nonetheless the effects of the vaccine and other potential related issues need to be made extremely clear and so far the government have not set up any campaign to educate the population on these issues in a clear and transparent and easily comprehended way. This is unfortunately leading many to search for questionable alternative sources of information to educate themselves.

It's also important to be careful of people on the internet who are spreading disinformation including on this thread.

The pretence at moderation has been done to death here and it's incredibly easy to spot. It's funny that the anti-vaxxers are allowed to spew all the bile they want and nobody ever comes in to tell them of the need to refrain from being dismissive. Only one side is ever prosetylised to about this.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2020 1:04pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody knows anything for sure but in this instance, what's the alternative? Will the public accept more years of lockdown while an arbitrary number of people are tested? How many would be sufficient do you think and how many years of pharmacovigilance will be adequate for you to think it's safe to get?

Again, i am not arguing against the roll out of the vaccines, at all!

As you say, what is the alternative, we can't go on like this for much longer - i'd say we are rapidly approaching, if we haven't already gone past the point where the lockdowns are doing more harm than good.

My point is all these people going on about the vaccines being perfectly safe and anyone who thinks otherwise is a crackpot are talking out their arses. We simply don't know that as of yet - and we can't and won't know untill after it's done.

There is a risk involved doing it and there is a risk involved not doing it - that is just stone cold fact.

ancapailldorcha · 03-12-2020 1:09pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My point is all these people going on about the vaccines being perfectly safe and anyone who thinks otherwise is a crackpot are talking out their arses. We simply don't know that as of yet - and we can't and won't know untill after it's done.

There is a risk involved doing it and there is a risk involved not doing it - that is just stone cold fact.

The both sides fallacy.

One "side" at least has some data while the other is spreading nonsense from crackpots. There is a world of difference between the two and simply saying there's not enough data isn't good enough without specifying what the minimum should be or at least what would satisfy you.

Vaccines are designed as medical products for use on human beings. This isn't being done from scratch. Safety testing is being done as we speak so no assumptions are being made. If that's not good enough for you, fine but the fallacies and pretences are just tiresome.

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 1:11pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Again, i am not arguing against the roll out of the vaccines, at all!

As you say, what is the alternative, we can't go on like this for much longer - i'd say we are rapidly approaching, if we haven't already gone past the point where the lockdowns are doing more harm than good.

My point is all these people going on about the vaccines being perfectly safe and anyone who thinks otherwise is a crackpot are talking out their arses. We simply don't know that as of yet - and we can't and won't know untill after it's done.

There is a risk involved doing it and there is a risk involved not doing it - that is just stone cold fact.

Only one side is quantifying those risks. and nobody has said that vaccines are perfectly safe.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2020 1:36pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The both sides fallacy.

One "side" at least has some data while the other is spreading nonsense from crackpots. There is a world of difference between the two and simply saying there's not enough data isn't good enough without specifying what the minimum should be or at least what would satisfy you.

Vaccines are designed as medical products for use on human beings. This isn't being done from scratch. Safety testing is being done as we speak so no assumptions are being made. If that's not good enough for you, fine but the fallacies and pretences are just tiresome.

The people who think they're going to be micro chipped by Bill Gates, or that they'll wake up like rainman the morning after getting it are beyond reason, you're wasting your time trying to convince them of anything.

I am not one of those! Let's be 100% clear about that.

There is no fallacy in anything i've said - i agree with you roll out the vaccine, this **** has to end. I just will not be at the top of the que and that's that - i'll take my chances with covid, i'll forego pints and holidays and whatnot untill i see what the effects of giving it to a hugely greater number of people is.

Those effects simply are not known and can not be known at the moment. That is a stone cold fact, not a fallacy or a conspiracy theory.

If i or my family were in a particularly vulnerable group i'd probably be more eager, but i'm not, so i'm not.

ancapailldorcha · 03-12-2020 1:47pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The people who think they're going to be micro chipped by Bill Gates, or that they'll wake up like rainman the morning after getting it are beyond reason, you're wasting your time trying to convince them of anything.

I am not one of those! Let's be 100% clear about that.

There is no fallacy in anything i've said - i agree with you roll out the vaccine, this **** has to end. I just will not be at the top of the que and that's that - i'll take my chances with covid, i'll forego pints and holidays and whatnot untill i see what the effects of giving it to a hugely greater number of people is.

Those effects simply are not known and can not be known at the moment. That is a stone cold fact, not a fallacy or a conspiracy theory.

If i or my family were in a particularly vulnerable group i'd probably be more eager, but i'm not, so i'm not.

Lots of things cannot be known. For instance, we don't know what happens if you own and use an iPhone for decades because it isn't that old an invention. Funny how the anti-vaxxers aren't so bothered about that.

Despite the strawman, nobody trusts Pharma companies. It's why we regulate them and have state entities go through the data with a fine-toothed comb.

If you're nervous, do not want the vaccine and are willing to self-isolate, fair enough. If someone doesn't want the vaccine and wants to be able to pass a dangerous virus to other people then I have nothing but contempt for them.

YFlyer · 03-12-2020 2:10pm

storker wrote: »

Of course they do - they're just very picky about which bits of science they don't trust. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of my brother who is a Flat Earther, anti everything, yet uses a laptop to troll the internet.

ohnonotgmail · 03-12-2020 2:15pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Reminds me of my brother who is a Flat Earther, anti everything, yet uses a laptop to troll the internet.

does he have a phone with a GPS?

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2020 2:16pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you're nervous, do not want the vaccine and are willing to self-isolate, fair enough. If someone doesn't want the vaccine and wants to be able to pass a dangerous virus to other people then I have nothing but contempt for them.

It's as simple as this you either accept or reject the following -

1 There is a possibility of large scale use of a new vaccine revealing some unforeseen side effect which trials did not.

2 There is a possibility that some unforeseen side effect will only show up after x amount of time, which is longer than since trials began.

If you accept both of those then you have to also accept -

3 The more people who have received it, and the more time that has elapsed, the less likely it is that any unwanted effects will not have been seen

I don't see how any sensible person can disagree with that.

If you reckon there's some inherent flaw in my thinking then by all means point it out.

And therefore - in the absence of some pressing reason to rush in, it makes more sense to hang towards the back of the que than to rush to the front. And that is my point. No microchips, no autism, no new world order - just straight forward logic!

Anti-vaxxers

Comments