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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Anti-vaxxers

1…173174176178179…199

Comments

  • #5252
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


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

    Ignore them. Reality will hit them.


  • #5253
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    does he have a phone with a GPS?

    He has a low key type of phone. One of those Nokia 410 type. I guess there is gps features in them?


  • #5254
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    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!

    This is the problem with the anti-vaxx narrative on this. They hate masks and they hate lockdown. They can't have it both ways.

    It'd be nice if you could answer my question because otherwise it sounds like you're hiding behind a facade of there not being sufficient data. How much safety data would be enough?

    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



  • #5255
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    This is the problem with the anti-vaxx narrative on this. They hate masks and they hate lockdown. They can't have it both ways.

    It'd be nice if you could answer my question because otherwise it sounds like you're hiding behind a facade of there not being sufficient data. How much safety data would be enough?

    the amount of data required is N + 1 where N is the amount of data currently available.


  • #5256
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    This is the problem with the anti-vaxx narrative on this. They hate masks and they hate lockdown. They can't have it both ways.


    Again, i can't stress this enough - i am NOT an anti vaxxer. I have all my normal vaccines, my kids have all theirs- vaccines have been one of mankinds greatest achievements as far as i'm concerned!



    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It'd be nice if you could answer my question because otherwise it sounds like you're hiding behind a facade of there not being sufficient data. How much safety data would be enough?


    I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't know the number - but it's plainly obvious that the higher the number the better. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.


  • Advertisement
  • #5257
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,491 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    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.

    I completely agree, my post was referring specifically to not being dismissive of the concerns of 'on the fence' people


  • #5258
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't know the number - but it's plainly obvious that the higher the number the better. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

    Like the rest of the anti-vaxx stuff, that's completely insipid.

    How much more exactly with everyone being so selfish that they're scrambling to the back of the line? If nobody wants the vaccine or even to participate in trials then it's either lockdown or you just shrug as vulnerable people start suffering and dying. Anti-vaxxers clearly have no issue with this but it's disappointing to see the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude from people who clearly aren't conspiracy theorists.

    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



  • #5259
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    sbsquarepants wrote: »

    I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't know the number - but it's plainly obvious that the higher the number the better. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

    That only works up to a point. You can always ask for "more" but you need to set a point where you're happy with the data provided.

    I'd suggest a study of 40,000 people without serious adverse effects.


  • #5260
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    cooperguy wrote: »
    That only works up to a point. You can always ask for "more" but you need to set a point where you're happy with the data provided.

    I'd suggest a study of 40,000 people without serious adverse effects.


    And i'd suggest that the real data only comes from widespread usage. This is a global vaccination program, i feel no need to rush to the top of que, i'm not in a vulnerable group.



    Pencil me in somewhere around the billion mark, provided the first few hundred million go OK:D


  • #5261
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Like the rest of the anti-vaxx stuff, that's completely insipid.

    How much more exactly with everyone being so selfish that they're scrambling to the back of the line? If nobody wants the vaccine or even to participate in trials then it's either lockdown or you just shrug as vulnerable people start suffering and dying. Anti-vaxxers clearly have no issue with this but it's disappointing to see the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude from people who clearly aren't conspiracy theorists.


    Jaysus, you're quite a black and white type of chap aren't you!

    Everyone is not scrambling to the back of line. You're not for a start. Plenty of people here falling over themselves to get it. I'm inclined to leave them to it and see how it pans out first. It will probably be just fine, but that's a probably not a definitely, what do i have to gain by taking the risk? Nothing whatsoever.

    What exactly is the problem with that?


  • Advertisement
  • #5262
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Jaysus, you're quite a black and white type of chap aren't you!

    Everyone is not scrambling to the back of line. You're not for a start. Plenty of people here falling over themselves to get it. I'm inclined to leave them to it and see how it pans out first. It will probably be just fine, but that's a probably not a definitely, what do i have to gain by taking the risk? Nothing whatsoever.

    What exactly is the problem with that?

    There is the risk you a) become infected with Covid and b) pass it to others.


  • #5263
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    What exactly is the problem with that?

    As long as you don't object to having to self-isolate once the vaccine is out I have no problem.

    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



  • #5264
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There is the risk you a) become infected with Covid and b) pass it to others.


    That is a risk, i'm not denying that but i'm taking that risk right now, and as other people get the vaccine that will presumably be reducing all the time.


  • #5265
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    As long as you don't object to having to self-isolate once the vaccine is out I have no problem.


    I don't quite follow. Why would i have to self isolate then, if i don't now?

    There would be less chance of contracting and spreading it if 10, 20, 50% of people were vaccinated. What possible reason would there be for tightening restrictions in a less dangerous environment?

    Other than punishment for not queing up like an aul one outside penneys?


  • #5266
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    That is a risk, i'm not denying that but i'm taking that risk right now, and as other people get the vaccine that will presumably be reducing all the time.

    If you want to risk not taking the vaccine, that's fine. But your validation for doing so is off.


  • #5267
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you want to risk not taking the vaccine, that's fine. But your validation for doing so is off.


    How so?

    My entire point is we will have a better idea of the effects of this thing after more people have taken it for a longer time. The greater the number of people and the longer the time the better.

    You can disagree with that all you like, but you'd be wrong.


  • #5268
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I don't quite follow. Why would i have to self isolate then, if i don't now?

    There would be less chance of contracting and spreading it if 10, 20, 50% of people were vaccinated. What possible reason would there be for tightening restrictions in a less dangerous environment?

    Other than punishment for not queing up like an aul one outside penneys?

    The vaccine won't be 100% effective so it seems a bit selfish to just risk the health of other people to suit yourself.

    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



  • #5269
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    How so?

    My entire point is we will have a better idea of the effects of this thing after more people have taken it for a longer time. The greater the number of people and the longer the time the better.

    You can disagree with that all you like, but you'd be wrong.

    It's this sort of silly strawman that suggests you're just pushing the anti-vaxxer stuff. Nobody has disagreed with this.

    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



  • #5270
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    How so?

    My entire point is we will have a better idea of the effects of this thing after more people have taken it for a longer time. The greater the number of people and the longer the time the better.

    You can disagree with that all you like, but you'd be wrong.

    The above can be said for anything.

    But that's not your point here. As a lay-person you're picking some arbitrary line in the sand based on gut instinct, at which point you will decide it's safe for you to take.


  • #5271
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It's this sort of silly strawman that suggests you're just pushing the anti-vaxxer stuff. Nobody has disagreed with this.


    Jesus, learn some new words man, it's not a strawman and i'm not an anti vaxxer.

    Do you mind in that case telling me what then is your problem with my stance exactly?

    Seeing as you agree that we'll know more later, what do you see as being so outrageous with waiting till a bit later?
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The above can be said for anything.

    But that's not your point here. As a lay-person you're picking some arbitrary line in the sand based on gut instinct, at which point you will decide it's safe for you to take.

    Exactly. I am not a scientist - i don't know how this vaccine works (maybe you do?) As a lay person, i feel it's blindingly obvious that if 30,000 people have taken something without serious ill effects that's a good sign, if it was 300,000 that would be better, 300 million would be better again.

    I don't have some magic number in mind where it flips from being certain death to eternal health and well being.

    More people + more time = more knowledge = less risk

    Seeing as apparently everyone agrees with this, i honestly can't see why my stance would be annoying anyone (Other than some form of virtue signalling)


  • Advertisement
  • #5272
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Jesus, learn some new words man, it's not a strawman and i'm not an anti vaxxer.

    Do you mind in that case telling me what then is your problem with my stance exactly?

    Seeing as you agree that we'll know more later, what do you see as being so outrageous with waiting till a bit later?

    My problem is the selfishness and the misrepresentation of what people are saying. Nobody is pretending that more data are not better despite you claiming otherwise. It's reflected in the concept of statistical power and factored into clinical trials.

    What I see as outrageous is your willingness to risk other people's health to suit yourself. Hopefully governments legislate to make concert venues, airlines and so on require proof of vaccination which should make everyone happy.

    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



  • #5273
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,215 ✭✭✭jh79


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't know the number - but it's plainly obvious that the higher the number the better. I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

    Not true. More is only statistically better to a certain extent. After a certain number is reached there is no more statistical value going higher.

    The rarer the event the harder it is to reach that number hence we have post approval studies.


  • #5274
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    jh79 wrote: »
    Not true. More is only statistically better to a certain extent. After a certain number is reached there is no more statistical value going higher.

    The rarer the event the harder it is to reach that number hence we have post approval studies.


    Obviously. 30,000 intuitively seems quite a low threshold to me however.


  • #5275
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    My problem is the selfishness and the misrepresentation of what people are saying. Nobody is pretending that more data are not better despite you claiming otherwise. It's reflected in the concept of statistical power and factored into clinical trials.

    What I see as outrageous is your willingness to risk other people's health to suit yourself. Hopefully governments legislate to make concert venues, airlines and so on require proof of vaccination which should make everyone happy.


    Well we'll just agree to differ so. I see it it as foolish to risk your own health to suit others. Whatever venues are off limits to me, i will live without. When i see that large numbers of others have taken it without any issues, then i'll go get it myself.


    There is absolutely nothing wrong with concern for your own personal well being. We aren't the borg!


  • #5276
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,215 ✭✭✭jh79


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Well we'll just agree to differ so. I see it it as foolish to risk your own health to suit others. Whatever venues are off limits to me, i will live without. When i see that large numbers of others have taken it without any issues, then i'll go get it myself.


    There is absolutely nothing wrong with concern for your own personal well being. We aren't the borg!

    Even if you wait for large numbers to take it you are not protecting yourself any further. For rare adverse events it could takes years for a pattern to emerge and you're assuming these adverse events will present themselves quickly. Due to the vaccine being taken in large numbers unrelated adverse events are going to be reported too. Unless you plan on waiting 10 years or more i don't see the point.


  • #5277
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Obviously. 30,000 intuitively seems quite a low threshold to me however.

    It's really not, at this point it would have to be such an incredibly rare event that the chances of you getting it are remote. The other option is a time dependent one, in which case you should state how long is satisfactory to you but the very basic point is, you are effectively saying you will never take it, because there sound like you will always want more time or more people.


  • #5278
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Well we'll just agree to differ so. I see it it as foolish to risk your own health to suit others. Whatever venues are off limits to me, i will live without. When i see that large numbers of others have taken it without any issues, then i'll go get it myself.


    There is absolutely nothing wrong with concern for your own personal well being. We aren't the borg!

    Where's the risk to your health in self-isolating?

    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



  • #5279
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Obviously. 30,000 intuitively seems quite a low threshold to me however.

    your intuition doesn't understand statistics.


  • #5280
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    My problem is the selfishness and the misrepresentation of what people are saying. Nobody is pretending that more data are not better despite you claiming otherwise. It's reflected in the concept of statistical power and factored into clinical trials.

    What I see as outrageous is your willingness to risk other people's health to suit yourself. Hopefully governments legislate to make concert venues, airlines and so on require proof of vaccination which should make everyone happy.

    You love authoritarianism don't you, you'd be the type ringing the stasi police...


  • Advertisement
  • #5281
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    You love authoritarianism don't you, you'd be the type ringing the stasi police...

    :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement