SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[CanadianUtd]

Now, I strongly suspect we would not see eye to eye on economic politics but that's an issue of unfettered capitalism. Who else would produce the vaccines in the current global set up?

Okay, simple question for you then: if the pharmaceuticals such as pfizer are such God sends, then why aren’t they pushing through their own product to certain underprivileged nations that aren’t giving them full immunity of said product? Those nations will still pay them millions/billions to receive the product and all they ask is they have the option to be held liable in the case of any unfortunate circumstance. And yet they won’t budge. If they’re truly hero’s and doing all this selfless work for humanity as some say they are, then wouldn't you think the least they could do is comprise there, still make a buck off their product, in order to offer their life/epidemic/pandemic saving production to those in need? This was mentioned by the president of the world bank, I’m only further inquiring why that is.

Begrudging that Pfizer is raking in profits from the vaccines is weird, when they are saving million of lives worldwide and allowing people to actually have some semblance of normalcy back.

sure, if this is what you deem/accept as normalcy

 

[CanadianUtd]

Yes and that's also what led me to form the comparison I used given the narrative is so one sided. Obviously the Taliban and Bin Laden are not looked upon favourably here so it seemed natural to put you on that "side" so to speak. The analogy also works as a prediction model as well as I expect all your arguments to be ignored as "extremist thinking" or "intellectual terrorism" and I can see the same thing happening where the mods will eventually go along with the public sentiment that you are a dangerous poster and ban you (shoot you in the head and throw you in the sea).

Woah. Really??

I really hope you’re exaggerating. Definitely don’t have any intentions to be some sort of wrench in the way. And I’m definitely not trying to be controversial or out there. Only stating what my honest feelings are. And I’m unsure of how to feel of this comparison to the Taliban/Bin Laden

 

[CanadianUtd]

Which ramifications do you project for the future as a consequence of tactics deployed to deal with Covid (or perhaps deployed under the excuse of dealing with Covid if you see it that way)? I assume you are referring to increased powers for Governments such the capacity to track individuals and increased societal compliance to control measures? These are valid concerns

So you agree. That was easy.

I’ll go on a limb and I don’t know, say not do the things they themselves said they wouldn’t do/implement but have gone ahead and done anyways, which were a question of morals/ethics to begin with that they acknowledged but as we now know it have backtracked on. That’d be a start.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Okay, simple question for you then: if the pharmaceuticals such as pfizer are such God sends, then why aren’t they pushing through their own product to certain underprivileged nations that aren’t giving them full immunity of said product? Those nations will still pay them millions/billions to receive the product and all they ask is they have the option to be held liable in the case of any unfortunate circumstance. And yet they won’t budge. If they’re truly hero’s and doing all this selfless work for humanity as some say they are, then wouldn't you think the least they could do is comprise there, still make a buck off their product, in order to offer their life/epidemic/pandemic saving production to those in need? This was mentioned by the president of the world bank, I’m only further inquiring why that is.

I don't think pharmaceutical businesses "God sends". Big Pharma are profit driven capitalist entities and not altruistic. Pretty much all the experts work for them. Given we didn't have time for some utopian evolution of global human society what else was meant to happen precisely? There is no other mechanism. Clearly distribution to poorer countries should have been given far more priority and, personally, profit driven medical care is something I am not a fan of. None of this undermines the value of the vaccine but is merely a critique of human nature, global politics and , from my perspective, poorly regulated economic policies and industry governance.

A poster describing the vaccines themselves, however, as a good thing is clearly not wrong. The scientists and technicians and medics and trialists who helped develop these vaccines in record time have done good things objectively.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

So you agree. That was easy.

I’ll go on a limb and I don’t know, say not do the things they themselves said they wouldn’t do/implement but have gone ahead and done anyways, which were a question of morals/ethics to begin with that they acknowledged but as we now know it have backtracked on. That’d be a start.

I agree that they're valid concerns, yes. I'm not sure there'd be many people who don't have at least some level of concern.

Who is "they" in your third sentence? Governments in general? A specific government?

As an aside, your second paragraph doesn't feel like it's in the spirit of open discussion that you claim.

 

[CanadianUtd]

@Fingeredmouse thank you for the thorough response, I really do appreciate your time. However didn’t answer my concern about why they haven’t gone into those nations who aren’t offering them immunity to their product.

It won’t prevent them from making their profit, they’ll still get paid for it if they accept said compromise. But they don’t. They want absolutely zero risk and all reward. As evident by their (in)actions here and unwillingness to budge. If this is really that severe of a pandemic and a question about life or death and the ability to save people’s lives with said product, then why don’t the compromise on that one thing and still go ahead while making money for it?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

@Fingeredmouse thank you for the thorough response, I really do appreciate your time. However didn’t answer my concern about why they haven’t gone into those nations who aren’t offering them immunity to their product.

It won’t prevent them from making their profit, they’ll still get paid for it if they accept said compromise. But they don’t. They want absolutely zero risk and all reward. As evident by their (in)actions here and unwillingness to budge. If this is really that severe of a pandemic and a question about life or death and the ability to save people’s lives with said product, then why don’t the compromise on that one thing and still go ahead while making money for it?

What do you mean by "immunity to their product"? Can you give examples please?

 

[CanadianUtd]

I agree that they're valid concerns, yes. I'm not sure there'd be many people who don't have at least some level of concern.

Who is "they" in your third sentence? Governments in general? A specific government?

As an aside, your second paragraph doesn't feel like it's in the spirit of open discussion that you claim.

Yes, they as in governments/elected officials who said they wouldn’t push through the regulations and such which ended up doing and going back on their own words.

That’s fair but I disagree with it. It’s a very straight forward and simple response as far as I’m concerned. You said what else should they have done? My response is the things they themselves said they wouldn’t do. They could still go about offering the product they’ve paid for, no one’s stopping them. But within the realm of ethics and stripping away peoples rights. Again, which they said they wouldn’t push or do.

 

[CanadianUtd]

What do you mean by "immunity to their product"? Can you give examples please?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yes, they as in governments/elected officials who said they wouldn’t push through the regulations and such which ended up doing and going back on their own words.

That’s fair but I disagree with it. It’s a very straight forward and simple response as far as I’m concerned. You said what else should they have done? My response is the things they themselves said they wouldn’t do. They could still go about offering the product they’ve paid for, no one’s stopping them. But within the realm of ethics and stripping away peoples rights. Again, which they said they wouldn’t push or do.

So, your position would broadly be that if someone doesn't want to take the vaccine, for non medical reasons, that any restrictions placed on them as a consequence of legislation (say a vaccine passport to enter hospitality venues) is inherently immoral?

 

[Stack]

I said so in response, not initiation, which I feel is true with how the poster came across.

And yes, the ramifications of these covid lockdowns/regulations are inhumane, immoral, and unethical. History proves that and so does common sense. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact actually. Now if you’d like to discuss that we can by all means :]

In the country I live in your comment about ramifications is very clearly completely wrong. You are too often applying very broad strokes and seem to be forgetting that things elsewhere are not as per your own personal experience.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

@Fingeredmouse thank you for the thorough response, I really do appreciate your time. However didn’t answer my concern about why they haven’t gone into those nations who aren’t offering them immunity to their product.

It won’t prevent them from making their profit, they’ll still get paid for it if they accept said compromise. But they don’t. They want absolutely zero risk and all reward. As evident by their (in)actions here and unwillingness to budge. If this is really that severe of a pandemic and a question about life or death and the ability to save people’s lives with said product, then why don’t the compromise on that one thing and still go ahead while making money for it?

They don't want to be tied up in foreign courts for the next decade battling mostly frivolous lawsuits.

They want to enjoy similar or better protections that those they have enshrined in law in Canada, the US and Europe.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yes, but more detail is needed. All medical treatments have some level of side effect. Legal responsibility for side effects from horrendous incidents such as the Thalidomide disaster are reasonable for instance. Given the clear efficacy and, given we've just gone through the biggest sample size for a medical trail ever, the very low incidence of meaningful side effects I struggle to see why any pharmaceutical would have an issue complying with standard legal process in any country. It seems from the video you posted, for instance, that no standard indemnity exists for Pfizer in certain countries (I assume because they have no prior engagements that are in anyway comparable).

Are you suggesting the reluctance is because they're worried about some side effect they'll be legally on the hook for?

 

[CanadianUtd]

So, your position would broadly be that if someone doesn't want to take the vaccine, for non medical reasons, that any restrictions placed on them as a consequence of legislation (say a vaccine passport to enter hospitality venues) is inherently immoral?

Yes. I mean, the Nuremberg code is/was a thing for a reason.

…..hypothetically, even if someone said instead of the vaccine you have to take vitamins or something that has absolutely zero risk to a person. If the ramifications were/are the same as they are now, I’d still be against it. Because it’s inhumane. But that’s also not the case. There’s nothing involuntary about what’s going on and certain peoples lives have been severely restricted as a result of it. That is completely immoral.

…..an exaggeration: running 30 minutes a day is good for you and prevents future health complications which will otherwise cause a strain to the health sectors. Run every day or else you can’t access *insert current rules/regulations/ramifications* and no if’s and’s or but’s.

but it’s even more crazy when you realize the vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit covid. The only thing the vaccine does is marginally prevent hospitalization. So what should it matter to know one’s status? They aren’t harming anyone other than themselves potentially. And if they don’t feel the need to take said product for any reason at all, that should be completely justifiable and not held against them in any way, shape or form. It boggles me when an unhealthy persons who takes the jab somehow is more mindful and safe than a person who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. 1 size fits all has never been the case for humanity apart from water. Why is there this extreme narrative that it has to be with this or any other thing. Completely illogical. And then to restrict people as a result.

 

[CanadianUtd]

anyways, I’ll be busy for a bit.

Will get back to those that respond and further want to have a bit of back n forth and just discuss. Cheers!

 

[Carolina Red]

Likewise.

The blinded, willful, pro-vax pushing advocates do not see that their stance means infinite “involuntary”-mandatory boosters for rest of life. Because that’s quite exactly where this leads to and is leading to.

…..yes smallpox and chicken pox and such were eradicated with the use of vaccines. But do not compare them to these “vaccines”. These very ones don’t eradicate said disease/virus by any measure of the traditional definition. In fact, they actually changed the definition of vaccination as a result of said current vaccines. It’s almost misinformation to have labelled them as such. They’re much more in line of a flu-shot. And the (idiotic) people shouting down “get vaccinated so it’ll eradicate the virus as it was done to smallpox etc” — I guess what they really mean is like how they’ve eradicated the flu in the past.

You could have just typed “I don’t know what I’m talking about”… or nothing. Either would have worked better than that post.

 

[Stack]

Yes. I mean, the Nuremberg code is/was a thing for a reason.

…..hypothetically, even if someone said instead of the vaccine you have to take vitamins or something that has absolutely zero risk to a person. If the ramifications were/are the same as they are now, I’d still be against it. Because it’s inhumane. But that’s also not the case. There’s nothing involuntary about what’s going on and certain peoples lives have been severely restricted as a result of it. That is completely immoral.

…..an exaggeration: running 30 minutes a day is good for you and prevents future health complications which will otherwise cause a strain to the health sectors. Run every day or else you can’t access *insert current rules/regulations/ramifications* and no if’s and’s or but’s.

but it’s even more crazy when you realize the vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit covid. The only thing the vaccine does is marginally prevent hospitalization. So what should it matter to know one’s status? They aren’t harming anyone other than themselves potentially. And if they don’t feel the need to take said product for any reason at all, that should be completely justifiable and not held against them in any way, shape or form. It boggles me when an unhealthy persons who takes the jab somehow is more mindful and safe than a person who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. 1 size fits all has never been the case for humanity apart from water. Why is there this extreme narrative that it has to be with this or any other thing. Completely illogical. And then to restrict people as a result.

Keep on building your arguments on falsehoods, the only person you end up fooling is yourself.

 

[Widow]

Your post is an idiot

This is genuinely funny.

 

[Withnail]

You could have just typed “I don’t know what I’m talking about”… or nothing. Either would have worked better than that post.

Utterly baffling

 

[CanadianUtd]

Keep on building your arguments on falsehoods, the only person you end up fooling is yourself.

Feel free to dissect or refute it then and tell me where I’m wrong.

If not, then you’re just dodging whatever is being said/peoples legitimate concerns and questions.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yes. I mean, the Nuremberg code is/was a thing for a reason.

…..hypothetically, even if someone said instead of the vaccine you have to take vitamins or something that has absolutely zero risk to a person. If the ramifications were/are the same as they are now, I’d still be against it. Because it’s inhumane. But that’s also not the case. There’s nothing involuntary about what’s going on and certain peoples lives have been severely restricted as a result of it. That is completely immoral.

…..an exaggeration: running 30 minutes a day is good for you and prevents future health complications which will otherwise cause a strain to the health sectors. Run every day or else you can’t access *insert current rules/regulations/ramifications* and no if’s and’s or but’s.

but it’s even more crazy when you realize the vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit covid. The only thing the vaccine does is marginally prevent hospitalization. So what should it matter to know one’s status? They aren’t harming anyone other than themselves potentially. And if they don’t feel the need to take said product for any reason at all, that should be completely justifiable and not held against them in any way, shape or form. It boggles me when an unhealthy persons who takes the jab somehow is more mindful and safe than a person who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. 1 size fits all has never been the case for humanity apart from water. Why is there this extreme narrative that it has to be with this or any other thing. Completely illogical. And then to restrict people as a result.

Well, lots of this post is incorrect. The vaccines more than marginally reduce risk of hospitalisation and also reduce chances of infection (Omicron outcomes pending of course). The data is unequivocal and based on vast sample sizes.

Also your analogy of going for a run isn't comparable. Vaccinating populations has a cumulative benefit to all in the limitation of the spread of an infectious disease. There is no such parable in your running. It's not an exaggerated example: it's not equivalent.

Also, which clause of the Nuremburg code is being violated? You could argue, I guess, that prevention of taking certain jobs, for instance, due to an unvaccinated status is a limitation of rights (although there are many precedents pre Covid) but by no stretch of the imagination does that breach the Nuremburg code. I assume you mean clause 1:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Are you arguing ulterior coercion?

 

[massi83]

Just use the ignore function. There is zero upside in engaging with them.

 

[CanadianUtd]

Well, lots of this post is incorrect. The vaccines more than marginally reduce risk of hospitalisation and also reduce chances of infection (Omicron outcomes pending of course). The data is unequivocal and based on vast sample sizes.

Also your analogy of going for a run isn't comparable. Vaccinating populations has a cumulative benefit to all in the limitation of the spread of an infectious disease. There is no such parable in your running. It's not an exaggerated example: it's not equivalent.

Also, which clause of the Nuremburg code is being violated? You could argue, I guess, that prevention of taking certain jobs, for instance, due to an unvaccinated status is a limitation of rights (although there are many precedents pre Covid) but by no stretch of the imagination does that breach the Nuremburg code. I assume you mean clause 1:

Are you arguing ulterior coercion?

Yes, I’m not arguing that. I’m saying, what does it matter then if those are vaccinated and those that aren’t. Surely the ones vaccinated should feel confident having less chances of hospitalization/infection. Otherwise it goes against its own logic.


Will get back on the code later on today (too much to bring up atm for me). In the meantime, what happened to herd immunity? And speaking of which, why are those who were infected and gained natural immunity not considered protected and immune at all? Zero talk of it. When there’s been multiple case studies showing that those with natural protection are actually better off than those with vaccinated protection. In fact it offers better and much longer lasting immunity. Yet that’s not even on the table?

…you know something’s wrong when the scientific process can’t even be brought up. When no scrutiny/questions/concerns are allowed and only 1 way is deemed acceptable and the way out, even for those that factually have received better protection in another form but aren’t even acknowledged. Would love to hear a reason for that.

 

[Wibble]

Just got boostered. Arm hurts more than the first two.

I got mine on Monday. Arm hurt much worse (but not that bad) and I was a bit fevery through the first night. Arm nearly back to normal 56 hrs after getting booster.

 

[Wibble]

Just cancelled our joint 40th party (the other half and myself, same day) for Saturday. because some of our guests although jabbed would definitely count as vulnerable, and others work in the NHS, and although they would have come are quite rightly nervous and didn't want to have them feeling bad if they decided not to come. Absolutely the right call imo but still beyond gutted. No football, no party, feck covid. (Im not fishing for sympathy, i know so so many have lost loved ones, jobs, and more besides, just need to vent at someone who wont feel bad about it)

Well done. Sometimes harder to make the right decision. When you have it later it will be even better I'd guess.

 

[CanadianUtd]

I got mine on Monday. Arm hurt much worse (but not that bad) and I was a bit fevery through the first night. Arm nearly back to normal 56 hrs after getting booster.

Question (for you or anyone really):

do you know if the booster/even the 2nd shot, are the same as the 1st? Or are they different?

 

[Ludens the Red]

Chickenpox eradicated

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yes, I’m not arguing that. I’m saying, what does it matter then if those are vaccinated and those that aren’t. Surely the ones vaccinated should feel confident having less chances of hospitalization/infection. Otherwise it goes against its own logic.


Will get back on the code later on today (too much to bring up atm for me). In the meantime, what happened to herd immunity? And speaking of which, why are those who were infected and gained natural immunity not considered protected and immune at all? Zero talk of it. When there’s been multiple case studies showing that those with natural protection are actually better off than those with vaccinated protection. In fact it offers better and much longer lasting immunity. Yet that’s not even on the table?

…you know something’s wrong when the scientific process can’t even be brought up. When no scrutiny/questions/concerns are allowed and only 1 way is deemed acceptable and the way out, even for those that factually have received better protection in another form but aren’t even acknowledged. Would love to hear a reason for that.

In order:

Vaccination requires as much of the population to be vaccinated as possible to be effective. It's different levels for different diseases but, no matter, the principle stands. So people being unvaccinated causes many problems:
i) The disease will continue to spread at higher levels than necessary
ii) The unvaccinated will get ill impacting health services
iii) Further lockdown protocols will be required impacting all
iv) Vaccinated people will be at more risk of catching the illness inversely to the population vaccination rate and although they're far less likely to get very ill and die, more will the more unvaccinated people there are.
It doesn't "go against its own logic"

Your second paragraph is difficult to understand but, yes, prior infection clearly offers a level of protection and it's talked about a lot in the media, in the literature and in this very thread. In short, vacc is better and vacc plus prior infection better still. There's data everywhere on this.

You've lost me entirely on the third point. In what sense can the scientific method not be brought up? What method do you think is in underpinning the subject we, and all the World, are right now discussing and debating? What factual better protection are you referring to? If you think people are getting irritated with you in this thread because they fear scrutiny then you've got the wrong end the stick.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Question (for you or anyone really):

do you know if the booster/even the 2nd shot, are the same as the 1st? Or are they different?

If you get the same vaccine, then yes, they're the same.

 

[Wibble]

Yes. I mean, the Nuremberg code is/was a thing for a reason.

That had nothing to do with vaccination or public health measure. It was to stop involuntary torture and experimentation by people like Mengele. Nobody is being experimented on here unless they are art of a study and then they sign up for it. Even mentioning the Nuremberg code is ludicrous and you would be better improving the fit of your tin foil hat.

…..hypothetically, even if someone said instead of the vaccine you have to take vitamins or something that has absolutely zero risk to a person. If the ramifications were/are the same as they are now, I’d still be against it. Because it’s inhumane. But that’s also not the case. There’s nothing involuntary about what’s going on and certain peoples lives have been severely restricted as a result of it. That is completely immoral.

It is voluntary. You have a choice. If you don't like the consequences well tough luck but that is different.

I want to drive a car but you can't make me pass a test and get a driving licence. Oh wait .....
I have a notifiable disease. You can't stop me working in a hospital or hospitality. Oh wait ...
I want a job as a doctor but i don't want to go to University you can't stop me operating in people. Oh wait.
I want to be a teacher but I don't want to get a working with children check to make sure I'm not a kiddy fiddler and you can't stop me. Oh wait ...

…..an exaggeration: running 30 minutes a day is good for you and prevents future health complications which will otherwise cause a strain to the health sectors. Run every day or else you can’t access *insert current rules/regulations/ramifications* and no if’s and’s or but’s.

Was a silly example. A fitter population is obviously a good thing but not running isn't going to overwhelm the health service this week and someone being unfit isn't going to kill other people (unless you get very fat and fall on people).

but it’s even more crazy when you realize the vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit covid.

Such a blanket statement hide fact. Immunisation and booster massively reduces your chance of getting covid, hugeky reduces the chances of you passing it on if you do get it and reduces the severity of disease for just about everyone.

The only thing the vaccine does is marginally prevent hospitalization.

There is nothing marginal about it. In Victorian Australia (currently over 90% of adults fully vaxxed) 91% of those in ICU weren't fully vaccinated and 88% were totally unvaccinated. A tad more than marginal I'd say.

So what should it matter to know one’s status? They aren’t harming anyone other than themselves potentially.

Because they are. Potentially (or very likely) you are getting covid and passing it on to someone who will suffer harm or even die.

And if they don’t feel the need to take said product for any reason at all, that should be completely justifiable and not held against them in any way, shape or form. It boggles me when an unhealthy persons who takes the jab somehow is more mindful and safe than a person who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. 1 size fits all has never been the case for humanity apart from water. Why is there this extreme narrative that it has to be with this or any other thing. Completely illogical. And then to restrict people as a result.

Fat unfit people aren't harming me or my family. The unvaccinated are. If you want the benefits that society brings you also need to take your responsibility to others seriously. If you refuse to then you can't justifiably cry that society is being mean to you.[/quote]

 

[Wibble]

In comparison to these vaccines and their drop-off rates (hence the need to endless boosters to makeup for said drops), it’s almost night and day in comparison to those certain traditional vaccines.

Point being, these ones are far more similar to flu shots. And remember how far the goal posts have moved down the line since they first talked about the vaccines. They talked of them in the traditional sense. That you wouldn’t contract covid and wouldn’t be able to transmit it. Remember “breakthrough” cases? …so yea, more like the covid equivalent flu shots. Mandatory for the rest of life as it’ll keep mutating as does the flu? That’ll be a no from me…..

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Vaccines normally produce antibodies and memory cell such as b-cells and t-cells. Antibodies wane after the vaccine in the absence of infection but if infection occurs in the future memory cells produce antibodies faster than if it was a novel infection. This is what will happen when we move from a pandemic to covid being endemic. This will take a while as we need to vaccinate the world and not just the developed world. Variants will then either stop arising or do so far less often. After that we may or may not need true boosters if memory cells wane over time or a new variant requires a tweaked vaccine but it likely won't be every 6 months or even annually. The current booster program is to keep as many people as possible with active antibodies in their bloodstream to gets us through this pandemic stage by limiting infections and severity of disease as much as possible.

And why would you object to regular vaccination anyway? Not only is having your annual flu shot zero hassle but it is incredibly sensible. Why would anyone not want to have it?

 

[Wibble]

Question (for you or anyone really):

do you know if the booster/even the 2nd shot, are the same as the 1st? Or are they different?

I had AZ originally and the booster was Pfizer but it was the same dose as the original Pfizer shots. And all the available data suggests it hugely reduces disease severity including from Omicron compared to not having the booster.

 

[R'hllor]

Maybe this was already answered, i see many mentioning how there seems big difference between 2 shots vs booster, is that 2 shots in general or 2 shots that happened like 8 months ago?

Got my 2nd shot 2 months ago, so just wondering.

 

[Stack]

Yes, I’m not arguing that. I’m saying, what does it matter then if those are vaccinated and those that aren’t. Surely the ones vaccinated should feel confident having less chances of hospitalization/infection. Otherwise it goes against its own logic.


Will get back on the code later on today (too much to bring up atm for me). In the meantime, what happened to herd immunity? And speaking of which, why are those who were infected and gained natural immunity not considered protected and immune at all? Zero talk of it. When there’s been multiple case studies showing that those with natural protection are actually better off than those with vaccinated protection. In fact it offers better and much longer lasting immunity. Yet that’s not even on the table?

…you know something’s wrong when the scientific process can’t even be brought up. When no scrutiny/questions/concerns are allowed and only 1 way is deemed acceptable and the way out, even for those that factually have received better protection in another form but aren’t even acknowledged. Would love to hear a reason for that.

Are you aware that 25% of those who contract covid while unvaccinated end up with Zero natural immunity?

You mention the vaccines giving marginal protection. Marginal is just completely false.

Where exactly are you getting all your information from?

 

[CanadianUtd]

In order:

Vaccination requires as much of the population to be vaccinated as possible to be effective. It's different levels for different diseases but, no matter, the principle stands. So people being unvaccinated causes many problems:
i) The disease will continue to spread at higher levels than necessary
ii) The unvaccinated will get ill impacting health services
iii) Further lockdown protocols will be required impacting all
iv) Vaccinated people will be at more risk of catching the illness inversely to the population vaccination rate and although they're far less likely to get very ill and die, more will the more unvaccinated people there are.
It doesn't "go against its own logic"

Your second paragraph is difficult to understand but, yes, prior infection clearly offers a level of protection and it's talked about a lot in the media, in the literature and in this very thread. In short, vacc is better and vacc plus prior infection better still. There's data everywhere on this.

You've lost me entirely on the third point. In what sense can the scientific method not be brought up? What method do you think is in underpinning the subject we, and all the World, are right now discussing and debating? What factual better protection are you referring to? If you think people are getting irritated with you in this thread because they fear scrutiny then you've got the wrong end the stick.

point being, the mention of reaching herd immunity in many places has been thrown out the window and forgotten about.
i) the disease will spread regardless or vaccination or not. Look at some of the most vaccinated places in the world. They’re actually the ones with the most cases right now. Antibiotic resistance (mutation) is a thing and clear with these vaccines.
ii) yes as do the vaccinated. To what ratio? Difficult to draw any hard line because some places have higher% vaccinated hospitalized than unvaccinated and in other places it’s vice versa.
iii) lockdowns, through their own track record, have shown that they don’t really work and in fact provide more harm to society than good. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/30/covid-19-lockdowns-caused-more-deaths-instead-of-r/
iv) ok so if one’s vaccinated and one isn’t, bottom line is the latter shouldn’t have any moral obligation to cater to anyone. There’s been more than enough time for people to get vaccinated. Lockdowns made sense early on when it wasn’t a possibility but now more than a year later, it’s clear people have had adequate time.

Feel free to show me where it shows vax is “better” and what your “better” constitutes as. There’s also tons of inverse data available for what I’m mentioning, in fact the biggest study which was done in Israel proving superior natural immunity.

And what’s the point of acknowledging natural immunity when it doesn’t count for those that caught covid and it’s proven it’s more effective than the vaccine alone? What percentage of populations have had covid — tens of hundreds of millions (billions?) of people across the world. Yet no acceptance of them unless they take a shot. Where’s the science in that? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full.pdf

 

[CanadianUtd]

If you get the same vaccine, then yes, they're the same.

I had AZ originally and the booster was Pfizer but it was the same dose as the original Pfizer shots. And all the available data suggests it hugely reduces disease severity including from Omicron compared to not having the booster.

Ohh okay, thank you. I wonder why they continue to use the original vaccines when there are strain-specific vaccines made since which are supposedly more optimal.

 

[P-Ro]

This thread has it all. Nearly every page contains really informative posts that break down the latest medical news and data from studies in a way that idiots like me can understand easily (thanks and shout outs to @jojojo , @Pogue Mahone and @Wibble ). I never have anything substantial enough to add to this thread but it's probably the most invaluable thread on this forum and one that I read daily.

And then every couple of pages you get an antivaxxer chiming in with their PhD from the University of Facebook. Some great laughs to be had when these guys inevitably make a huge tit out of themself, despite it being quite scary how so many people eat this shit up from social media.

 

[CanadianUtd]

That had nothing to do with vaccination or public health measure. It was to stop involuntary torture and experimentation by people like Mengele. Nobody is being experimented on here unless they are art of a study and then they sign up for it. Even mentioning the Nuremberg code is ludicrous and you would be better improving the fit of your tin foil hat.

It is voluntary. You have a choice. If you don't like the consequences well tough luck but that is different.

I want to drive a car but you can't make me pass a test and get a driving licence. Oh wait .....
I have a notifiable disease. You can't stop me working in a hospital or hospitality. Oh wait ...
I want a job as a doctor but i don't want to go to University you can't stop me operating in people. Oh wait.
I want to be a teacher but I don't want to get a working with children check to make sure I'm not a kiddy fiddler and you can't stop me. Oh wait ...
Was a silly example. A fitter population is obviously a good thing but not running isn't going to overwhelm the health service this week and someone being unfit isn't going to kill other people (unless you get very fat and fall on people).

Such a blanket statement hide fact. Immunisation and booster massively reduces your chance of getting covid, hugeky reduces the chances of you passing it on if you do get it and reduces the severity of disease for just about everyone.

There is nothing marginal about it. In Victorian Australia (currently over 90% of adults fully vaxxed) 91% of those in ICU weren't fully vaccinated and 88% were totally unvaccinated. A tad more than marginal I'd say.

Because they are. Potentially (or very likely) you are getting covid and passing it on to someone who will suffer harm or even die.

Fat unfit people aren't harming me or my family. The unvaccinated are. If you want the benefits that society brings you also need to take your responsibility to others seriously. If you refuse to then you can't justifiably cry that society is being mean to you.

pfizer and other such companies have admitted saying in their own documents, referring to their vaccines as “experimental”. If that makes me a tinfoil then it makes them also. There’s a reason why they’re not FDA approved and still being used under the label of emergency use. But again if you want to title me as something, I’m not stopping you.

it’s voluntary but if you don’t take it, then you can’t live your life. Gotcha.

Test. That would suffice actually with covid. I whole heartedly agree. As was the case only a few months back. I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds. Implement the same thing you’re saying with flu shot in the past. Imagine if that was mandatory. If it wasn’t necessary then, it shouldn’t be for this either. For moral/ethical reasons. https://nationalpost-com.cdn.amppro.../wcm/c4659b2a-31ad-453c-a070-0331eea0cfc8/amp

Once again, yes I’m not denying that. So the people that are vaccinated shouldn’t have a problem around those unvaccinated (as was the case with the flu / flu shot) since they have lower odds to contract said virus via the shot and to be seriously hurt by it in comparison. It made sense and wasn’t necessary then but for some reason isn’t the case now.

I can list a handful of places who’s data shows more vaccinated were hospitalized than unvaccinated and also vice versa. The truth is, it varies so much that any ‘side’ can weaponize it for whatever narrative they deem fitting. Whether it’s a state/province like Vermont or city or even country like Scotland/Israel, theres data that contradicts but doesn’t provide any sort of hard line as it really does vary place to place.

Already addressed this.

People didn’t sign up for such a thing. You can’t retroactively implement stuff like this and pretend people were told to abide by this all along. It was never the case before for a reason. Because of morals/ethics. Which has been breached. One can quite easily argue “fat unfit” people are the ones using up tax dollars when they have complications down the line and require treatment. Point being, they’re still not denied service or demonized as those unvaccinated to covid are right now. As a society, you can’t just pick and choose who and who not to accept. That’s immoral and being made up on the fly.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And why would you object to regular vaccination anyway? Not only is having your annual flu shot zero hassle but it is incredibly sensible. Why would anyone not want to have it?

If that’s what you want to label me/my opinions as sure. And no I am not.

Because people have the right to? Same reason people object to a regular healthy lifestyle whether it be through their physical fitness or diet. Who are we to force upon others. Yes we may recommend and propose options but always with a choice which is ultimately up to said person. I don’t regularly take flu shots because I’m confident in my well being as of recent. When I was unwell 4 odd years ago with terminal illness, I took the flu shot in the best interest of myself knowing my body was definitely vulnerable. I just spoke to my specialist at the hospital this Monday for my annual checkup and thankfully, she doesn’t demonize others/me like some people out there do to others. We can carry out a normal conversation and respect one another. Since my checkups happen in December, I spoke to her December of 2019 and mentioned covid to her then. I was aware of it having followed independent journalists that were mentioning it since October of that year and was concerned for my well-being, being someone who was previously “compromised” (despite being recovered now). I said doc, have you heard about this virus. She said very generally she’s been following with her other colleagues. I said I know it’s absurd to ask but what do you predict will come of it? She said don’t quote me on it (which funny enough I’m doing right now), “but I think they’ll develop a seasonal shot for it like the flu”. Turns out, she was bang on and we still talk about it. She respects my opinions and doesn’t think of me as some numpty or “tin foil”. In fact, I show up with published papers to pick her brain and she teaches me quite a bit. Regarding the morals/ethics, she full on agrees with me and said just this week it’s scary that there’s no knowing where this will lead to and herself referenced places like Australia/Germany/Austria.

& this whole labelling of tin-foil hat for anyone that doesn’t see eye-to-eye with your beliefs, just know that it (hesitancy/concerns/questions/tin foil/whatever you want to call it) stems from the medical community itself. And that’s how it leaks out to populations. This may be news to you or others but let me tell you, not all scientists/doctors/researchers/regulators agree across the board. They are the ones who question and raise concerns among their own fields and it’s always been the case. Just because what people are seeing (very 1-sided) on mainstream media doesn’t mean the other ‘side’ doesn’t exist. Because it surely does. It for whatever reason doesn’t get the coverage thus most people think, ‘the science is unanimous’, when it’s far from it. So when you jump the gun to throw labels around to people who are being respectful, not idiots, and have concerns or their own reasons (whatever it may be, definitely not anyone’s business other than the person themself…like how it was in the past and common decency not to invade in others personal and private medical history) not to do a certain thing that you or others have, just know that you’re also labelling the same to a portion of the medical community who initiate these discussions…..no offence taken, in fact thank you for your time. I just wanted to make that clear and hope you enjoy your day

 

[Carolina Red]

There’s a reason why they’re not FDA approved and still being used under the label of emergency use.

Crazy then how this happened in August…
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

Again, I beg you, just post “I don’t know what I’m talking about” and be done with it.

 

[CanadianUtd]

Crazy then how this happened in August…
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

Again, I beg you, just post “I don’t know what I’m talking about” and be done with it.

Know the difference between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under the EUA. EUA are are considered “experimental” under law. Fully licensed FDA approval means carrying liability which these vaccines do not. They’re “approved”, just not the way you thought of it.

…again, I wish my doctor knew more about this who said this is correct.