The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[mav_9me]

Unfortunately the first I heard of it was on social media, hadn't spoken to him since the pandemic started and it was a Leicester Mercury post about a young man dying that my friend saw tagged us in.

I am sorry for your loss. I didn't mean to be insensitive about it.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Ooh my employer announced today that they will be requiring everyone to be vaccinated by October 31st, 2021. We have between 40 and 50k employees and the rest of the industry in Canada are likely doing the same. (edit: Bloomberg confirms four of the five big Canadian banks have done this today)

I'm sure there will be lawsuits. Our intranet site already has the anti-vaxxers out in full force screaming about FDA approval (you're in Canada meathead)

 

[Ramshock]

Was it wrong to assume that PL footballers had to be vaccinated? Even some United players arent

 

[Balljy]

Ooh my employer announced today that they will be requiring everyone to be vaccinated by October 31st, 2021. We have between 40 and 50k employees and the rest of the industry in Canada are likely doing the same. (edit: Bloomberg confirms four of the five big Canadian banks have done this today)

I'm sure there will be lawsuits. Our intranet site already has the anti-vaxxers out in full force screaming about FDA approval (you're in Canada meathead)

I'm guessing that's for all employees based in Canada rather than overseas as well? It would be a bit problematic to say that to employees in countries with limited supplies

Good on them I say.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I'm guessing that's for all employees based in Canada rather than overseas as well? It would be a bit problematic to say that to employees in countries with limited supplies

Good on them I say.

I'm not sure about us but one of the other banks has applied this to their global workforce.

Yeah I don't think it's unreasonable. People aren't going to get fired they just won't be able to come into their location. I would say people in branches will be glad that their co-workers are jabbed, although they are worried that the clients may not be, still the vaccine will protect them for a bad case.

 

[jojojo]

Was it wrong to assume that PL footballers had to be vaccinated? Even some United players arent

The PL say they can't enforce it. Depending on the rules the government orders for stadium access on matchdays, it may be that the players have to be vaxxed to play or not.

So far, there's also been no official renewal of last season's regulations that let players move between countries to play in European matches or for their national teams. If the special travel rules get dropped or changed - it might make foreign travel/international matches more or less impossible for unvaxxed players.

 

[FootballHQ]

Don’t know if this has been posted already.

Seems that's fairly good news given the euros final was nearly 5 weeks ago now so now in the data along with all the social gatherings around that period.

I mean we have to be realistic here. R number hovering between 1 or just under for next two months is going to be a very good effort. From November onwards going to be the issue given the daily death stats are now consistantly over 100.

 

[golden_blunder]

I accept and understand everyone who decides to get the vaccine.

Personally, I will not take it.
I trust my natural immune system more than an experimental gene-based vaccination.
I'm doing a lot for my body health via a healthy nutrition, Sport and activity in the fresh air plus enough relaxation and sleep.
I had the virus last year and nearly felt anything expect of two days of mild flu symptoms.

Everybody should be able to make this decision without being punished for it.

Nice knowing ya if you get Delta

 

[Pexbo]

I'll only consider getting vaccinated once there are other vaccines available.
For me it's a moral question, whether i want to support DNA and/or mRNA technology and i decided against it for now.
I don't want to support teaching the human body to produce something that it normally wouldn't.
I also don't want to receive DNA that's not my own in my cell nucleuses, NOT because i'm scared of some weird Bill Gatesy conspiracy theories or because i'd think that the vaccines don't work - i'm sure they do -, but I do have concerns about the possible future development of such technologies. In a way, new methods are always "experimental", because they're often the basis that leads to further development, maybe even away from its use as a vaccine - and i don't want a kind of gene therapy to become the "new normal" some day. And to make it clearer - i'm not "scared" of mRNA as such, that would be silly, i just dislike the method.

On the other hand, yes, i do trust my immune system to cope with the virus, i'm aware that there's a (not very high) risk for me, but a bit similar to Swiss_Red89 i already had the virus twice, had very mild symptoms the first time, then no symptoms at all the second time, so i must have some basic immunity at this point...



Agree with this.

How do you feel about the fact you’re just a smorgasbord of biological matter, amalgamated randomly by the universe? What does it really matter if the rare cosmological event that dictates the composition of your DNA arrives via an event you perceive as “natural” or arrives via an event you see as man made?

 

[golden_blunder]

You are probably right regarding the higher rate of people who get seriously ill when not vaccinated. But
1. The vaccine doesn't stop the virus from circulating, it only reduces the serve cases and
2. for example here in Switzetland we have a 50% rate of vaccinated people. In the more vulnerable age groups its around 80% and more. So if the vaccine is effective, I can't see the overcrowding of the hospitals happen only because of the unvaccinated persons, (most of them young and healthy ones).

Anyway, I'm aware that my views are controversial ones. I accept that a lot in here don't share it. I'm in holidays in the swiss mountains now, building up my immune system so I will not spend more time in here arguing about a topic already discussed day in day out.

Wish you all to stay safe and healthy, vaccinated or not.

I’d say you might get eaten by a bear but since you’re not vaccinated I’d say they are giving you a wide swerve

 

[golden_blunder]

@Zippy20 i would die for someone to come up with the gene treatment to rid my kids of the damn rogue gene, that has plague my family and ancestors. So don’t give me your shit

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Quote

‘An Oxford university study published on Thursday found that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against symptomatic infection almost halved after four months, and that vaccinated people infected with the more infectious Delta variant had as high viral loads as the unvaccinated.

Two research papers from the US and Qatar have also fuelled debate over the need for top-up booster shots as they found higher numbers of “breakthrough infections” than anticipated, even though protection against serious cases of the virus appears to hold.

“The situation has changed with respect to how far we think vaccines can take us,” she said. “We’ve been brought back to a more modest — but still critical — goal: to prevent severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.”

The Oxford scientists showed vaccine efficacy falling since the Delta strain became dominant in the UK in May. While the Pfizer shot was more effective at first, by four to five months after the second dose its efficacy was roughly the same as AstraZeneca’s jab, as the protection offered by the latter has barely budged.

The paper’s authors were not involved in the creation of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which originated at Oxford university.

Tomas Hanke, professor of vaccine immunology at Oxford’s Jenner Institute, speculated that the AstraZeneca shot generates longer-lasting immunity because its spike protein sticks around for more time, promoting a bigger immune response.

“When you deliver RNA, like the Pfizer vaccine, you deliver a finite number of mRNA molecules which are eventually cleared from the system,” he said. “But when you deliver the adenovirus, as AstraZeneca does, you deliver a template which then keeps producing these mRNAs that then produce the spike protein, so there’s no ceiling.”

Full article : https://www.ft.com/content/49641651-e10a-45f6-a7cc-8b8c7b7a9710

 

[Sir Matt]

Who needs a vaccine when you can take some of your cow's pills?

 

[WI_Red]

Quote

‘An Oxford university study published on Thursday found that the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against symptomatic infection almost halved after four months, and that vaccinated people infected with the more infectious Delta variant had as high viral loads as the unvaccinated.

Two research papers from the US and Qatar have also fuelled debate over the need for top-up booster shots as they found higher numbers of “breakthrough infections” than anticipated, even though protection against serious cases of the virus appears to hold.

“The situation has changed with respect to how far we think vaccines can take us,” she said. “We’ve been brought back to a more modest — but still critical — goal: to prevent severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.”

The Oxford scientists showed vaccine efficacy falling since the Delta strain became dominant in the UK in May. While the Pfizer shot was more effective at first, by four to five months after the second dose its efficacy was roughly the same as AstraZeneca’s jab, as the protection offered by the latter has barely budged.

The paper’s authors were not involved in the creation of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which originated at Oxford university.

Tomas Hanke, professor of vaccine immunology at Oxford’s Jenner Institute, speculated that the AstraZeneca shot generates longer-lasting immunity because its spike protein sticks around for more time, promoting a bigger immune response.

“When you deliver RNA, like the Pfizer vaccine, you deliver a finite number of mRNA molecules which are eventually cleared from the system,” he said. “But when you deliver the adenovirus, as AstraZeneca does, you deliver a template which then keeps producing these mRNAs that then produce the spike protein, so there’s no ceiling.”

Full article : https://www.ft.com/content/49641651-e10a-45f6-a7cc-8b8c7b7a9710

bull, and i can not stress this enough, shit. The AZ vaccine is a non replicating adenovirus, which means that the small subset of viruses that actually gain entry to host cells then deliver DNA to host cells for transcription. Eventually that DNA is degraded by cell DNases or the cell dies and that is it. I am not saying the AZ vaccine is bad, only that Tomas Hanke's judgement is likely being clouded by the dollar signs in his bank account. No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker.

Also, @LazyRed-Ninja, what is your end game here? Every post of yours is subtly "oh noes, the vax is bad!"

 

[Wibble]

bull, and i can not stress this enough, shit. The AZ vaccine is a non replicating adenovirus, which means that the small subset of viruses that actually gain entry to host cells then deliver DNA to host cells for transcription. Eventually that DNA is degraded by cell DNases or the cell dies and that is it. I am not saying the AZ vaccine is bad, only that Tomas Hanke's judgement is likely being clouded by the dollar signs in his bank account. No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker.

Also, @LazyRed-Ninja, what is your end game here? Every post of yours is subtly "oh noes, the vax is bad!"

Every post of his screams antivaxxer who doesn't want to admit it.

I think the FT had better stick to finance. As antibodies declined as expected you would anticipate that infections would be slightly more symptomatic, as memory cells take slightly longer to react to create more antibodies. A booster shot may be needed while the pandemic rages still but I'd suspect that very soon any third Pfizer shot won't be a booster as such but rather a vaccine tweaked to work better with Delta. It will take getting covid under control worldwide before we can start truly assessing if we need boosters and if so how often. Given that coronaviruses mutate much less slowly than influenza and immunity is seeming to persist well, I doubt that we will need annual boosters when things are eventually back to normal.

 

[Wibble]

In my opinion, that would be good, yes, i'd probably take an inactivated one to boost my already well-working immune system.

To clear up any possible confusion, i'm not "scared" of the vaccines available to me, i don't think that the different technologies are particularly unsafe in their current forms, even though i know more people with severe adverse effects to the vaccines than people, who developed severe symptoms from COVID - probably has to do with my age group (25-30).
But - statistics don't lie, those severe adverse effects don't happen very often, in the broader public definitely less often than severe COVID.

I'm just categorically against tinkering with genes and cells in any way, even if it's safe right now.
An example related to the available vaccines: If we are able to teach our cells to produce a spike protein through RNA, we may be able to teach them anything else if the technology gets further developed (maybe even to destroy themselves? I don't know for sure and i doubt any experts know at this point), that's a dangerous path in my opinion and as it's a new method nobody knows what will or won't be possible in the future. Who knows what kind of Mengele-type crazy person will come about some day and make use of the already existing technologies?
A different animal but one that has contributed to virology research in recent years: I'm also against any kind of use of the CRISPR/Cas method, because of the ways those kind of technologies could be used in the future, maybe ten, maybe twenty years from now.
I thoroughly understand that people disagree, argue that we need to deal with the pandemic first before we think about those things or may even think i'm just a conspiracy nutjob, though, and i hope i'm wrong as well, but we won't know whether my concerns were warranted until a lot of time has passed.

We don't need a long time to know you are talking nonsense. That is apparent now.

DNA/mRNA have been in vetinary use for some time and we are over 25 years into research on them. And we have now administered hundreds of millions of doses with minimal side effects. If you are worried about "long term" sideceffects you don't know how vaccines work. Very rare but immediate side effects (like the AZ clotting issue) can arise but they are by definition very rare as they only reveal themselves when the sample size is truly huge.

Drugs can have long term side effects but vaccines don't tend to ever have long term side effects - I can't think of one that took over 28 days to occur - rare or otherwise.

BTW I know more Croatians and Serbs than I do Chinese people but the data strongly suggests there are significantly more Chinese people on the planet. The lesson is that anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Every post of his screams antivaxxer who doesn't want to admit it.

I think the FT had better stick to finance. As antibodies declined as expected you would anticipate that infections would be slightly more symptomatic, as memory cells take slightly longer to react to create more antibodies. A booster shot may be needed while the pandemic rages still but I'd suspect that very soon any third Pfizer shot won't be a booster as such but rather a vaccine tweaked to work better with Delta. It will take getting covid under control worldwide before we can start truly assessing if we need boosters and if so how often. Given that coronaviruses mutate much less slowly than influenza and immunity is seeming to persist well, I doubt that we will need annual boosters when things are eventually back to normal.

and this is also where complications arise. your making an assumption by putting a label on me and thinking you are justified because?

I’ve mentioned several times that vaccinations are vital to get this pandemic under control. An anti vaxer would say such thing? I respectfully request that you don’t falsely accuse people and not expect to be corrected on it.

the article states:

‘“The situation has changed with respect to how far we think vaccines can take us,” she said. “We’ve been brought back to a more modest — but still critical — goal: to prevent severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.”


the reports that have been coming out lately are specifically in regards to potential decreasing efficiency in regards to the transmission of the virus (not the protection against severe symptoms and hospitalization per se). That is an import difference to keep in mind.

what is wrong in posting that vaccines are vital to fight this pandemic, but simultaneously citing studies and even recommendations of the CDC based on their studies in regards to potential decrase efficiency, thus recommending a booster. You even said that a booster may be needed during the pandemic, so I don’t see the complication here?

I do notice that people tend to act sensitive when discussing developments in the world of vaccines and medicine. Developments aren’t negative per se, that is what science is about. Science is not about absolute truths, it’s about improving upon what has already been established. Logic would dictate that vaccines would immensely contribute in decreasing death and hospitalization. Logic would also dictate that new data would arise and that through experiment and falsifications improvements will be made.

if after this post you still insist in calling me an anti vaxer, by all means, freedom of speech, but atleast don’t propose that you are being reasonable and rational.

nonetheless, I appreciate the conversation, lovely isn’t it a democracy where one can utilise free speech.

 

[Wibble]

and this is also where complications arise. your making an assumption by putting a label on me and thinking you are justified because?

I’ve mentioned several times that vaccinations are vital to get this pandemic under control. An anti vaxer would say such thing? I respectfully request that you don’t falsely accuse people and not expect to be corrected on it.

the article states:

‘“The situation has changed with respect to how far we think vaccines can take us,” she said. “We’ve been brought back to a more modest — but still critical — goal: to prevent severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.”


the reports that have been coming out lately are specifically in regards to potential decreasing efficiency in regards to the transmission of the virus (not the protection against severe symptoms and hospitalization per se). That is an import difference to keep in mind.

what is wrong in posting that vaccines are vital to fight this pandemic, but simultaneously citing studies and even recommendations of the CDC based on their studies in regards to potential decrase efficiency, thus recommending a booster. You even said that a booster may be needed during the pandemic, so I don’t see the complication here?

I do notice that people tend to act sensitive when discussing developments in the world of vaccines and medicine. Developments aren’t negative per se, that is what science is about. Science is not about absolute truths, it’s about improving upon what has already been established. Logic would dictate that vaccines would immensely contribute in decreasing death and hospitalization. Logic would also dictate that new data would arise and that through experiment and falsifications improvements will be made.

if after this post you still insist in calling me an anti vaxer, by all means, freedom of speech, but atleast don’t propose that you are being reasonable and rational.

nonetheless, I appreciate the conversation, lovely isn’t it a democracy where one can utilise free speech.

Your extreme enthusiasm for anything potentially negative about the vaccines and never presenting any convincing reason as to why you are so enthusiastic leads everyone to believe you are being disingenuous.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

And FYI the Caf is not a democracy and there is no right to free speech. We are all on here subject to Niall's benevolent dictatorship (or site owner as we call it).

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

We don't need a long time to know you are talking nonsense. That is apparent now.

DNA/mRNA have been in vetinary use for some time and we are over 25 years into research on them. And we have now administered hundreds of millions of doses with minimal side effects. If you are worried about "long term" sideceffects you don't know how vaccines work. Very rare but immediate side effects (like the AZ clotting issue) can arise but they are by definition very rare as they only reveal themselves when the sample size is truly huge.

Drugs can have long term side effects but vaccines don't tend to ever have long term side effects - I can't think of one that took over 28 days to occur - rare or otherwise.

BTW I know more Croatians and Serbs than I do Chinese people but the data strongly suggests there are significantly more Chinese people on the planet. The lesson is that anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

I highlighted this part to emphasis what I meant in the previous post. It’s possible to have a critique while not going against a specific premise. You mentioned that vaccines don’t tend to have long term side effects and that you can’t think of one that lasts longer then 28 days.

Quote:

‘The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed an increased number of deaths reported after a COVID-19 vaccination. Between December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.’

we can reasonable say that your statement was incorrect, however at the time I’d state that the above represents 0.0018% of the total amount of people having received a COVID jab.

conclusion, one can mention a ‘negative’ aspect whilst it doesn’t have a negative impact on the overall premise. Thus emphasis the need for vaccinations which contribute to reducing deaths and hospitalization.

thanks!

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Your extreme enthusiasm for anything potentially negative about the vaccines and never presenting any convincing reason as to why you are so enthusiastic leads everyone to believe you are being disingenuous.



And FYI the Caf is not a democracy and there is no right to free speech. We are all on here subject to Niall's benevolent dictatorship (or site owner as we call it).

Werent you free in responding to my comments ? Thus exercising free speech?

Didnt you ad hominem Tomas hanks the researcher from that article because of his founding/opinion by stating: ‘No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker’, simply because you disagreed? That was free speech wasn’t it?

 

[Wibble]

I highlighted this part to emphasis what I meant in the previous post. It’s possible to have a critique while not going against a specific premise. You mentioned that vaccines don’t tend to have long term side effects and that you can’t think of one that lasts longer then 28 days.

Quote:

‘The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed an increased number of deaths reported after a COVID-19 vaccination. Between December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.’

we can reasonable say that your statement was incorrect, however at the time I’d state that the above represents 0.0018% of the total amount of people having received a COVID jab.

conclusion, one can mention a ‘negative’ aspect whilst it doesn’t have a negative impact on the overall premise. Thus emphasis the need for vaccinations which contribute to reducing deaths and hospitalization.

thanks!

Are you really suggesting that over 12,000 people were killed by a covid vaccine? If so you will be very excited when we are all hugely vaccinated as you will be able to blame 80% or more of global deaths on covid vaccines.

And it isn't about not discussing things. It is about your incredibly focused attention to anything that can, or can be twisted towards, justifying young people not vaccinating.

 

[WI_Red]

Werent you free in responding to my comments ? Thus exercising free speech?

Didnt you ad hominem Tomas hanks the researcher from that article because of his founding/opinion by stating: ‘No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker’, simply because you disagreed? That was free speech wasn’t it?

No, that was me and I stand by my statement.

 

[Wibble]

Werent you free in responding to my comments ? Thus exercising free speech?

Didnt you ad hominem Tomas

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

Douglas Adams
the researcher from that article because of his founding/opinion by stating: ‘No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker’, simply because you disagreed? That was free speech wasn’t it?

No. Niall or the modmins can decide that what I'm saying is detrimental to the site and get rid at me at any time.

As for the "shill motherfecker" comment, that was directed at the quote tweeter and not the poster so not against the rules otherwise it would have received warning points.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

Are you really suggesting that over 12,000 people were killed by a covid vaccine? If so you will be very excited when we are all hugely vaccinated as you will be able to blame 80% or more of global deaths on covid vaccines.

And it isn't about not discussing things. It is about your incredibly focused attention to anything that can, or can be twisted towards, justifying young people not vaccinating.

basically proving my point by trying to frame that quote on me? Did I suggest it or did I simply cite from The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

the article actually states that deaths did occurr after vaccination, but that there is no definitive evidence to substantiate that the vaccination was the leading cause.

context my friend!

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

No. Niall or the modmins can decide that what I'm saying is detrimental to the site and get rid at me at any time.

As for the "shill motherfecker" comment, that was directed at the quote tweeter and not the poster so not against the rules otherwise it would have received warning points.

nobody denied that like any other platform there are rules to abide to, we are mainly speaking about freedom of speech within the context of conversation within this topic and thread. +WI_Red

You didnt agree with a certain researcher thus you excercised your free speech to use ad hominems. We don’t really need to be made aware of rules of platforms to inherently know that ad hominems are a poor way of admitting of not having something intelligent to say (In general).

nonetheless thank you for declaring that there is no free speech on this platform!

 

[Pexbo]

This feels like an Only Connect question:


@LazyRed-Ninja —> Vaccines

@Mainoldo —> Ole Gunnar Solskjær

…?

Spoiler

@Murder on Zidane's Floor —> Cryptocurrency

 

[11101]

bull, and i can not stress this enough, shit. The AZ vaccine is a non replicating adenovirus, which means that the small subset of viruses that actually gain entry to host cells then deliver DNA to host cells for transcription. Eventually that DNA is degraded by cell DNases or the cell dies and that is it. I am not saying the AZ vaccine is bad, only that Tomas Hanke's judgement is likely being clouded by the dollar signs in his bank account. No ceiling my ass you corporate shill mother fecker.

Also, @LazyRed-Ninja, what is your end game here? Every post of yours is subtly "oh noes, the vax is bad!"

Yeah, and goes completely against the results Pfizer have themselves seen in long term studies.

What this comes down to is Oxford University study finds Oxford University vaccine lasts longer (since nobody believes us any longer if we say its more effective). They've been at it since the very beginning.

 

[Brwned]

basically proving my point by trying to frame that quote on me? Did I suggest it or did I simply cite from The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

the article actually states that deaths did occurr after vaccination, but that there is no definitive evidence to substantiate that the vaccination was the leading cause.

context my friend!

The way you framed the evidence determines the point you were trying to make. The CDC didn’t frame the evidence as that one statistic with no interpretation, caveats or further discussion…you did. Which implies that single paragraph speaks for itself, it makes its own point. It doesn’t.

You want to take a controversial position without taking any responsibility for defending that position. You just cite other people and ask questions. That’s at the very least lazy, and it comes across as disingenuous. Especially when you end it with sarcastic thanks.

If you want to be taken seriously there’s other ways to do it. If you just want to wind people up then playing the victim doesn’t really work.

 

[Wibble]

nobody denied that like any other platform there are rules to abide to, we are mainly speaking about freedom of speech within the context of conversation within this topic and thread. +WI_Red

You didnt agree with a certain researcher thus you excercised your free speech to use ad hominems. We don’t really need to be made aware of rules of platforms to inherently know that ad hominems are a poor way of admitting of not having something intelligent to say (In general).

nonetheless thank you for declaring that there is no free speech on this platform!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I (and it would seem most of the caf and all of the modmins) think you must be a disingenuous antivaxxer due to you obsession with anything that is vaguely negative, or can be spun to maybe look so, and your total failure to explain why you are so obsessed.

The Caf doesn't ban merely for differences of opinion but even in democracies there are limits to free speech. And this isn't a democracy

 

[Solius]

and this is also where complications arise. your making an assumption by putting a label on me and thinking you are justified because?

I’ve mentioned several times that vaccinations are vital to get this pandemic under control. An anti vaxer would say such thing? I respectfully request that you don’t falsely accuse people and not expect to be corrected on it.

the article states:

‘“The situation has changed with respect to how far we think vaccines can take us,” she said. “We’ve been brought back to a more modest — but still critical — goal: to prevent severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths.”


the reports that have been coming out lately are specifically in regards to potential decreasing efficiency in regards to the transmission of the virus (not the protection against severe symptoms and hospitalization per se). That is an import difference to keep in mind.

what is wrong in posting that vaccines are vital to fight this pandemic, but simultaneously citing studies and even recommendations of the CDC based on their studies in regards to potential decrase efficiency, thus recommending a booster. You even said that a booster may be needed during the pandemic, so I don’t see the complication here?

I do notice that people tend to act sensitive when discussing developments in the world of vaccines and medicine. Developments aren’t negative per se, that is what science is about. Science is not about absolute truths, it’s about improving upon what has already been established. Logic would dictate that vaccines would immensely contribute in decreasing death and hospitalization. Logic would also dictate that new data would arise and that through experiment and falsifications improvements will be made.

if after this post you still insist in calling me an anti vaxer, by all means, freedom of speech, but atleast don’t propose that you are being reasonable and rational.

nonetheless, I appreciate the conversation, lovely isn’t it a democracy where one can utilise free speech.

Free speech exists because you literally were free to post this. Doesn’t make that post immune to critical responses.

People need to stop fecking whining about free speech every time they get criticised. It’s not how it works and you all sound like massive babies.

 

[Wibble]

You mentioned that vaccines don’t tend to have long term side effects and that you can’t think of one that lasts longer then 28 days.

Quote:

‘The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed an increased number of deaths reported after a COVID-19 vaccination. Between December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.’

we can reasonable say that your statement was incorrect, however at the time I’d state that the above represents 0.0018% of the total amount of people having received a COVID jab

This is straightforward covidiot nonsense.

 

[Dan_F]

I was speaking to a young apprentice for a client I work with yesterday. They got the first dose, but aren’t getting the second because it means they won’t have to isolate if they get pinged, or there is a positive case in their office.

Of all the stupid views I’ve had to challenge this year through work, this was probably the hardest, because it’s just pure laziness/selfishness.

 

[F-Red]

nobody denied that like any other platform there are rules to abide to, we are mainly speaking about freedom of speech within the context of conversation within this topic and thread. +WI_Red

You didnt agree with a certain researcher thus you excercised your free speech to use ad hominems. We don’t really need to be made aware of rules of platforms to inherently know that ad hominems are a poor way of admitting of not having something intelligent to say (In general).

nonetheless thank you for declaring that there is no free speech on this platform!

Can you at least learn how to use the quote function on here. Your posts make painful reading, despite the content.

 

[djembatheking]

Catching covid better than vaccine?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

 

[JPRouve]

Tell me if I totally misunderstood something. These covid vaccines are supposed to reduce the effects of an infection which in theory reduces the infectiousness of someone that has covid? Now it seems that many people think that the vaccine make them immune to the virus, many have seemingly stopped wearing masks where they should, they have stopped washing their hands as often, don't really maintain proper distance with people that are outside of their bubble and generally act as if the virus didn't exist anymore. So is it that surprising that we see a raise in the amount of people infected including vaccinated people?

 

[jojojo]

Tell me if I totally misunderstood something. These covid vaccines are supposed to reduce the effects of an infection which in theory reduces the infectiousness of someone that has covid? Now it seems that many people think that the vaccine make them immune to the virus, many have seemingly stopped wearing masks where they should, they have stopped washing their hands as often, don't really maintain proper distance with people that are outside of their bubble and generally act as if the virus didn't exist anymore. So is it that surprising that we see a raise in the amount of people infected including vaccinated people?

I think tiredness has set in generally - vaccinated or not. In the UK, antibody levels suggest that nearly 95% of adults have had covid, or had the vaccine, or had both. Generally I think people (including many scientists) believe we've given it our best shot and there's no reason to wait for some kind of "it's over," improvement, sometime in the indefinite future.

There's still mileage in some mitigations - particularly the ones that don't affect how we interact with each other. Things like better ventilation and better filtration of treated air for example. Encouraging rapid testing before you visit elderly/vulnerable family members or go on journeys or to events will get some take-up.

The other things? I hope we can encourage (or in the case of the UK go back to it being a legal requirement) use of masks in supermarkets etc and on public transport, and respect social distancing in queues etc - so that the most vulnerable don't have to hide. But for the UK at least, I think that battle has already been lost - unless deaths/hospitalisations start to zoom up again.

 

[jojojo]

Catching covid better than vaccine?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

Not really, not in terms of individual risk for adults - it's still safer to be vaxxed first - but we do need to have a proper conversation about what happens next. There's a difference between being antivax and accepting the limitations of vaccination.

I'm not at all convinced by the idea that mass boosters for example are an appropriate way forward and it alarms me that some countries are already changing vaccine passports to exclude vaccinations that are more than 9 months old.

I'm not convinced on moral grounds - the doses we're talking about dispensing in the autumn are needed globally.

I'm not even convinced by the science so far - chasing ongoing infection efficacy of 90%+ rather than looking at serious illness as the criteria seems wrong.

I also suspect that the real world efficiency calculations being done at the moment are full of holes. With a mostly vaccinated population, and a high level of infection immunity amongst the unvaxxed, it gets harder to find anything like a matched immune-naive control group. Particularly once issues like age, social deprivation, ethnicity, comorbidity, number of social/work contacts enter the picture. Now throw in "willingness to get tested" and I doubt that case rates are accurate enough to look at them on a jab efficacy week-by-week basis as we've started seeing in the press.

 

[Ramshock]

I accept and understand everyone who decides to get the vaccine.

Personally, I will not take it.
I trust my natural immune system more than an experimental gene-based vaccination.
I'm doing a lot for my body health via a healthy nutrition, Sport and activity in the fresh air plus enough relaxation and sleep.
I had the virus last year and nearly felt anything expect of two days of mild flu symptoms.

Everybody should be able to make this decision without being punished for it.

You trust your immune system to a brand new virus? How does that work?

Also you are not taking other peoples lives into consideration. If it were up to me If I could prove a friend or relative died because a vaccine refuser got them infected with covid and the refuser recovered I would charge them with manslaughter.

Also a Covid 19 vaccine refuser should be automatically be refused for any other injections/vaccinations they may need.

 

[mav_9me]

The way you framed the evidence determines the point you were trying to make. The CDC didn’t frame the evidence as that one statistic with no interpretation, caveats or further discussion…you did. Which implies that single paragraph speaks for itself, it makes its own point. It doesn’t.

You want to take a controversial position without taking any responsibility for defending that position. You just cite other people and ask questions. That’s at the very least lazy, and it comes across as disingenuous. Especially when you end it with sarcastic thanks.

If you want to be taken seriously there’s other ways to do it. If you just want to wind people up then playing the victim doesn’t really work.

I mean that's in his username to clear up any such potential confusion

 

[mav_9me]

Not really, not in terms of individual risk for adults - it's still safer to be vaxxed first - but we do need to have a proper conversation about what happens next. There's a difference between being antivax and accepting the limitations of vaccination.

I'm not at all convinced by the idea that mass boosters for example are an appropriate way forward and it alarms me that some countries are already changing vaccine passports to exclude vaccinations that are more than 9 months old.

I'm not convinced on moral grounds - the doses we're talking about dispensing in the autumn are needed globally.

I'm not even convinced by the science so far - chasing ongoing infection efficacy of 90%+ rather than looking at serious illness as the criteria seems wrong.

I also suspect that the real world efficiency calculations being done at the moment are full of holes. With a mostly vaccinated population, and a high level of infection immunity amongst the unvaxxed, it gets harder to find anything like a matched immune-naive control group. Particularly once issues like age, social deprivation, ethnicity, comorbidity, number of social/work contacts enter the picture. Now throw in "willingness to get tested" and I doubt that case rates are accurate enough to look at them on a jab efficacy week-by-week basis as we've started seeing in the press.

Me neither.

Also couldn't agree more with the second bolded point.