Jump to content

The Vaccine


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts

This table appears to show that those vaccinated are more likely to get infected but several times less likely to die - this is what we know and I have never denied that the vaccine has positive outcomes with regard to that - that's why I'm double vaccinated and personally I think  you're nuts not to be vaccinated - while there have been examples of bad reactions to it, generally it's the safer option (however I would defend the rights of anyone not to take it).
However, that is not the debate. The issue I raised was whether boosters would be effective against the new variant - all the evidence at best is the jury is out on this, yet the government present it as an absolute fact that it will work. 
The government messaging has seriously twisted facts and evidence and turned people against each other. I was listening to people being interviewed earlier who had just had the booster - one of the reasons they all gave for getting it was so they would protect others by not passing it on - however, as we know that is bollocks as the vaccine doesn't stop transmission. The only person the vaccine could protect is yourself - it is a choice people should make without feeling guilty about a false narrative that they are endangering others.
But if it protects the person receiving it then it does protect others by extension, as that person's immune system can kill the virus quicker meaning that they are contagious for a shorter period - and that is the way we get out of all this. The less time the virus has to spread, either within a person or between people, the less chance of it mutating and the more chance we have of developing a vaccine that will do for a longer time. We can be more proactive rather than always having to be reactive. Mutations are why it isn't a false narrative that the unvaccinated are endangering others.

Why did you get two doses? Would one not have been enough? If not, why would you think a third wouldn't be beneficial?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Slarti said:

But if it protects the person receiving it then it does protect others by extension, as that person's immune system can kill the virus quicker meaning that they are contagious for a shorter period - and that is the way we get out of all this. The less time the virus has to spread, either within a person or between people, the less chance of it mutating and the more chance we have of developing a vaccine that will do for a longer time. We can be more proactive rather than always having to be reactive. Mutations are why it isn't a false narrative that the unvaccinated are endangering others.

Why did you get two doses? Would one not have been enough? If not, why would you think a third wouldn't be beneficial?

I could turn that question on its head - at what point would you stop getting boosters, if they say, as seems likely, that booster protection wanes and you will need another booster every 3 months? When do you stop? There are several reasons I didn't get my booster - my own research on what experts were saying - I've already quoted Dr Gilbert, there were others like Allyson Pollock who made very reasoned arguments against generalised booster programmes, there was my own experience of having a bad reaction to the second vaccination, there was the moral argument about us getting boosted while poorer countries were struggling to get initial vaccination. However, probably the biggest one was the idea of being told something hadn't worked that well so you needed to take more of it and it'll work better. That, for me, didn't make sense, and I also don't know when that approach will stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I could turn that question on its head - at what point would you stop getting boosters, if they say, as seems likely, that booster protection wanes and you will need another booster every 3 months? When do you stop? There are several reasons I didn't get my booster - my own research on what experts were saying - I've already quoted Dr Gilbert, there were others like Allyson Pollock who made very reasoned arguments against generalised booster programmes, there was my own experience of having a bad reaction to the second vaccination, there was the moral argument about us getting boosted while poorer countries were struggling to get initial vaccination. However, probably the biggest one was the idea of being told something hadn't worked that well so you needed to take more of it and it'll work better. That, for me, didn't make sense, and I also don't know when that approach will stop.


I'll stop when it's safe to do so. When that will be, I have no idea at the moment.

If there weren't scientists disagreeing with each other, that's when I would be worried. I tend to go with what the current "consensus" is, if you can call it that. If the vast majority of experts in a field are leaning one way then that is probably the right way. It could be wrong but it's more likely to be right. Otherwise I would just be picking what "feels right" to me or agrees with what I already think - but I know I'm not an expert, so that would be silly. It would be like the way lots of people decide what version of Christianity to follow - they go with the one that agrees with how they already think.

The moral argument, while I see where you're coming from, doesn't really hold water. There's plenty vaccine out there and you taking it doesn't prevent someone in, say, Botswana getting it. It's the stockpiling by first world countries that's the issue there and that's a different argument that I'm sure we would be on the same side of.

If your doctor gave you antibiotics for something but it didn't clear up properly, then he prescribed you more of the same, you wouldn't take them?

If you got chemotherapy and were then told you had to go back for another round you wouldn't go?

If St Mirren didn't win any trophies one season you wouldn't bother with them again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slarti said:


 

 


I'll stop when it's safe to do so. When that will be, I have no idea at the moment.

If there weren't scientists disagreeing with each other, that's when I would be worried. I tend to go with what the current "consensus" is, if you can call it that. If the vast majority of experts in a field are leaning one way then that is probably the right way. It could be wrong but it's more likely to be right. Otherwise I would just be picking what "feels right" to me or agrees with what I already think - but I know I'm not an expert, so that would be silly. It would be like the way lots of people decide what version of Christianity to follow - they go with the one that agrees with how they already think.

The moral argument, while I see where you're coming from, doesn't really hold water. There's plenty vaccine out there and you taking it doesn't prevent someone in, say, Botswana getting it. It's the stockpiling by first world countries that's the issue there and that's a different argument that I'm sure we would be on the same side of.

If your doctor gave you antibiotics for something but it didn't clear up properly, then he prescribed you more of the same, you wouldn't take them?

If you got chemotherapy and were then told you had to go back for another round you wouldn't go?

If St Mirren didn't win any trophies one season you wouldn't bother with them again? emoji849.png

 

If I was prescribed antibiotics and they didn't work, I'd want a different antibiotic.

My point is the absolutism in all of this - people being described as nutters, or conspiracy theorists, just because they don't want to accept the chosen approach, or at the very least question it. Classic divide and rule - we now have people on the left supportive of moves to sack unvaccinated health workers. Scary times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



If I was prescribed antibiotics and they didn't work, I'd want a different antibiotic.
My point is the absolutism in all of this - people being described as nutters, or conspiracy theorists, just because they don't want to accept the chosen approach, or at the very least question it. Classic divide and rule - we now have people on the left supportive of moves to sack unvaccinated health workers. Scary times. 


And if your doctor said that more of the same will work? Would you say/think that you don't believe them and not take it? Or would you say/think that you don't believe them but take it anyway?

Your point has changed though, you were claiming earlier that having the booster make you more likely to get omicron.

A lot of them are nutters and conspiracy theorists, though. It's a bit like being a Sevco supporter and objecting to being labelled orange. If you "associate" with them, you tend to get tarred with the same brush.

If it was just the UK government that was pushing this then people would be right to ask questions, but it's most (if not all) governments, governments who are getting their info and recommendations from their own (different) scientists and medical experts.

Do I think that there are some politicians and their cronies (and maybe even scientists and medical experts) making lots of money out of this? Yes, but that is something to be dealt with later.

Would you advocate the sacking of health workers who refused to wash their hands?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Slarti said:


 

 


And if your doctor said that more of the same will work? Would you say/think that you don't believe them and not take it? Or would you say/think that you don't believe them but take it anyway?

Your point has changed though, you were claiming earlier that having the booster make you more likely to get omicron.

A lot of them are nutters and conspiracy theorists, though. It's a bit like being a Sevco supporter and objecting to being labelled orange. If you "associate" with them, you tend to get tarred with the same brush.

If it was just the UK government that was pushing this then people would be right to ask questions, but it's most (if not all) governments, governments who are getting their info and recommendations from their own (different) scientists and medical experts.

Do I think that there are some politicians and their cronies (and maybe even scientists and medical experts) making lots of money out of this? Yes, but that is something to be dealt with later.

Would you advocate the sacking of health workers who refused to wash their hands?

 

I didn't argue that getting the booster made you more likely to get Omicron- but statistically it looks like that may be the case - however my argument was there was no evidence that getting the booster would stop you getting it, yet that is  what is being spun - if they said look, we don't know if this will work but it's worth a punt, then fair enough but they are claiming it will work when they have no evidence to support this. So many false claims, like the figure of 90% unvaccinated in hospital when the real figure is around 36% - MSM allowed to lie with impunity.

Re health workers, presumably the reason for making vaccination a condition of employment is to protect patients - yet we know that being vaccinated doesn't stop you spreading it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hendo said:

I didn't argue that getting the booster made you more likely to get Omicron- but statistically it looks like that may be the case - however my argument was there was no evidence that getting the booster would stop you getting it, yet that is  what is being spun - if they said look, we don't know if this will work but it's worth a punt, then fair enough but they are claiming it will work when they have no evidence to support this. So many false claims, like the figure of 90% unvaccinated in hospital when the real figure is around 36% - MSM allowed to lie with impunity.

Re health workers, presumably the reason for making vaccination a condition of employment is to protect patients - yet we know that being vaccinated doesn't stop you spreading it. 

The booster reduces serious illness, or worse.

THIS is a key point in protecting the health of the public, "getting" it, certainly this new variant, isn't anywhere close to an issue for the vast majority, so, therefore, spreading it also isn't a major issue which makes the increasing frenzy for restrictions all the more difficult to accept. 

As for the ratio of vaccinated/unvaccinated in hospital, I thought we'd covered that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CDC COVID Data Tracker

A lot of reliable data gathered in the U.S.

they've spotted that the death rate is rising in white people and children, with reason being that they're unvaccinated.

Also interesting to note that their evidence supports the claim that boosters are effective in the fight against Covid. It certainly appears that you are less likely to get Covid if you have the booster. 

image.png.5d870f5b15789e601f8914a7c9d25504.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not said the vaccines have not helped - of course they have. However, the evidence to support boosting the whole population at such an early point, only three months after the initial jab, was non existent and part of the "just do something" approach of all the four nations. As the early data shows, this approach is not showing any effect in slowing down the spreading of the new variant, with many of those infected already boosted. Whether it does have some effect in terms of reducing hospitalizations and death time will tell, but it is equally possible that any reduction in these numbers is due to the milder strain of the new variant than the booster.
Of course, the self made NHS crisis, underfunded for years compounded with staff numbers depleted due to self isolation measures, makes it ripe for privatisation which is the governments main agenda. The pandemic is merely creating the conditions to make this process easier.

I agree fully on your last point (privatisation), this is coming IMO that’s for sure, are they devious enough to use Covid as a toll to engineer same, for me that would be a yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FTOF said:

CDC COVID Data Tracker

A lot of reliable data gathered in the U.S.

they've spotted that the death rate is rising in white people and children, with reason being that they're unvaccinated.

Also interesting to note that their evidence supports the claim that boosters are effective in the fight against Covid. It certainly appears that you are less likely to get Covid if you have the booster. 

image.png.5d870f5b15789e601f8914a7c9d25504.png

 

These are good, reassuring stats. It does make you wonder though, if there are good stats like this which support their approach, why the government and MSM feel the need to make shit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RichardBuddie said:


I agree fully on your last point (privatisation), this is coming IMO that’s for sure, are they devious enough to use Covid as a toll to engineer same, for me that would be a yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Privatisation by stealth has been happening for years. Given that Sunak has been over in the USA bending over and offering our NHS to all bidders, it's only a matter of time before we see privatisation come to the fore in the NHS.

Covid has been a good smokescreen, but that's the tip of the iceberg. If you can be arsed looking deeply enough, there are plenty  political decisions, with social care, that have been made that have been "hidden" by Covid and voted in without much outcry. Then you have the Brexit shambles which has hammered businesses in the UK, but Covid has picked up most of the blame, if you believe Boris and his trough feeding colleagues.

Why can’t the UK government explain what its Health Bill will actually achieve? | openDemocracy

If you believe in a public NHS, the new health and care bill should set off alarm bells | Allyson Pollock and Peter Roderick | The Guardian

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I didn't argue that getting the booster made you more likely to get Omicron- but statistically it looks like that may be the case - however my argument was there was no evidence that getting the booster would stop you getting it, yet that is  what is being spun - if they said look, we don't know if this will work but it's worth a punt, then fair enough but they are claiming it will work when they have no evidence to support this. So many false claims, like the figure of 90% unvaccinated in hospital when the real figure is around 36% - MSM allowed to lie with impunity.
Re health workers, presumably the reason for making vaccination a condition of employment is to protect patients - yet we know that being vaccinated doesn't stop you spreading it. 


But you did. Maybe it's not what you meant to say, but it is what you said. As I said, your "point" has changed (a few times), or maybe you have the same point but just aren't phrasing it properly.

Statistically, it doesn't look like that at all.

That's not what's being "spun". "Offers protection from" is not the same as "you won't get it".

Whatever the accurate numbers are, it's clear that the unvaccinated are "over represented" in ICU and death numbers.

I've already commented on the transmission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hendo said:

If I was prescribed antibiotics and they didn't work, I'd want a different antibiotic.

My point is the absolutism in all of this - people being described as nutters, or conspiracy theorists, just because they don't want to accept the chosen approach, or at the very least question it. Classic divide and rule - we now have people on the left supportive of moves to sack unvaccinated health workers. Scary times. 

Correctly sacking an employee has nothing to do with your political views.

The absolutism with yourself is that you never accept the chosen approach and always continually question it, not because its for the greater good but your own attention seeking motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lenziebud said:

Correctly sacking an employee has nothing to do with your political views.

The absolutism with yourself is that you never accept the chosen approach and always continually question it, not because its for the greater good but your own attention seeking motives.

You should always question everything. Only then can things change for the better. If you just prefer to accept whatever you are told, that's up to you but personally I think that's quite sad if you don't believe critical thinking is necessary.

Honestly, on this thread I've felt like a medieval serf questioning the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hendo said:

You should always question everything. Only then can things change for the better. If you just prefer to accept whatever you are told, that's up to you but personally I think that's quite sad if you don't believe critical thinking is necessary.

Honestly, on this thread I've felt like a medieval serf questioning the church.

Might be worth applying some of your critical thinking as to why that might be ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hendo said:

You should always question everything. Only then can things change for the better. If you just prefer to accept whatever you are told, that's up to you but personally I think that's quite sad if you don't believe critical thinking is necessary.

Honestly, on this thread I've felt like a medieval serf questioning the church.

Bugger off Hendo nobody believes you 😂

DB3C898B-C7B7-4948-BE81-6830097559CF.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hendo said:

These are good, reassuring stats. It does make you wonder though, if there are good stats like this which support their approach, why the government and MSM feel the need to make shit up.

I can only speak for myself here (white male, 45-60 age bracket, no significant health conditions) I have had two jags, the last one in April. I am currently isolating after getting positive test on Monday. Got symptoms similar to heavy cold on Boxing Day, knew straight away it was Covid as I have not had as much as a sniffle since the pandemic started. 
I still don’t plan on getting a booster anytime soon but don’t decry anyone who does. I do feel that there is a thin line just now between self agency and the greater good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on my own observations  of the stats so far on this current wave only 3% of cases reported  are in the over 65s ,and they are the age group with the highest  number of booster  jabs ,something like 95% 

 

The highest  number of cases are under 45 ,the group with the lowest number of booster jabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

Just on my own observations  of the stats so far on this current wave only 3% of cases reported  are in the over 65s ,and they are the age group with the highest  number of booster  jabs ,something like 95% 

The highest  number of cases are under 45 ,the group with the lowest number of booster jabs.

Not just yours.

The FM during her briefing today, did mention that they're unsure of the effects of Omicron on the older age groups, as there haven't been infected to significant degree. It's one of the reasons that they're being so cautious.

Of course, the fact that these age groups are the least likely to be out and about to get infected might be a factor, but after the festive season's socialising I suspect a lot of these age groups will have been mixing with a lot of the younger groups. Hopefully, we don't see that translate into an increase in cases.

P.S.

What noun/term would you use to describe an increase in numbers from 5000 per day to 15,000 in two weeks?

A  A tsunami

B  A tidal wave

C A giant wave

D  All of the above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Not just yours.

The FM during her briefing today, did mention that they're unsure of the effects of Omicron on the older age groups, as there haven't been infected to significant degree. It's one of the reasons that they're being so cautious.

Of course, the fact that these age groups are the least likely to be out and about to get infected might be a factor, but after the festive season's socialising I suspect a lot of these age groups will have been mixing with a lot of the younger groups. Hopefully, we don't see that translate into an increase in cases.

P.S.

What noun/term would you use to describe an increase in numbers from 5000 per day to 15,000 in two weeks?

A  A tsunami

B  A tidal wave

C A giant wave

D  All of the above

I wouldn't describe it in any of those terms as we haven't been flooded with a mass of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

I can only speak for myself here (white male, 45-60 age bracket, no significant health conditions) I have had two jags, the last one in April. I am currently isolating after getting positive test on Monday. Got symptoms similar to heavy cold on Boxing Day, knew straight away it was Covid as I have not had as much as a sniffle since the pandemic started. 
I still don’t plan on getting a booster anytime soon but don’t decry anyone who does. I do feel that there is a thin line just now between self agency and the greater good. 

Hope you are better soon bud.

Exactly my point, this should be an individual decision - my wife decided to get the booster and I was supportive of this, while I have decided not to. Should be an individual choice and not something where you are made to feel guilty if you make the "wrong" choice. The debate at the moment over this is toxic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...