Anti-vaxers. Nuts, or not ?

[Hervey Bay]

Recently a friend who I thought is quite sane, and who has a slight medical background, shared some anti-vax information with me. At first I thought it was a wind-up but then I realized that they were serious, and that also there are medically trained people in the US who support the anti vax movement. How is this possible ?

 

One particular lady doesn't have a good rap in Wikipedia though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits

 

Really....I'm completely flabbergasted. It's like Trump's claims about elector fraud....there is no evidence. But how can people like my friend, who appear educated and sane, follow it all ? I'm having major cognitive dissonance here.

Edited December 17, 2020 by onthedarkside
link to disallowed source removed

[Peter Denis]

Not surprisingly (to me at least), there are many anti-vaxxers with a solid medical and scientific background that studied the subject profoundly.  But unfortunately as with every subject of a certain complexity there are indeed also many Nutters that discredit any serious discussion of the issue by linking it to their far-fetched conspiracy theories.

And the problem is exacerbated by the regular pro-vax media providing much cloud to the Nutters as the Nutter-claims are easily cast aside, and the conspiracy-sites that also feature simplistic anti-vax info are of course not taken seriously by any sane person.

When you are new to the subject, I certainly don't blame you that your post provides a link to a well known conspiracy-site and to Wikipedia, because that's what a quick Google search on the subject will come up with.

But be aware that you won't find any serious information material on both of these.  Yes, I also use Wikipedia for getting some initial orientation and factual info, but don't think for 1 minute that Wikipedia provides objective information on controversial subjects (they are heavily biased against everything that deviates from the common narrative like alternative medicine).

>> Did you know that wherever you find fool's gold, real gold exists somewhere nearby?

 

[Jingthing]

Nuts

[polpott]

Nuts.

[Hervey Bay]

The Wikipedia link is about the woman in the Youtube clip, and I don't think it is intended to give a critique of vaccinations or anti-vax. It does seem to expose the woman as lacking in credibility though. She hasn't answered questions or given credible, peer-reviewed research on anything much at all. And she hasn't answered questions....

[Bluetongue]

Nuts, although what we are about to receive may not technically be a vaccine. I always thought a vaccine provided immunity from an infection. I'm no expert but it seems to me that the major candidates are more in the line of preventive medicine and the extent of immunity provided is yet unknown.

[GroveHillWanderer]

19 minutes ago, Bluetongue said:

Nuts, although what we are about to receive may not technically be a vaccine. I always thought a vaccine provided immunity from an infection. I'm no expert but it seems to me that the major candidates are more in the line of preventive medicine and the extent of immunity provided is yet unknown.

No, a vaccine is something that prompts a person's immune system to mount a response to a specific pathogen, once it encounters the pathogen in the future.

 

It does this by training the body's immune system to recognize the pathogen (or components thereof) and create antibodies, plus T and B cells designed to combat the pathogen in question.

 

Whether that immune response prevents any infection or just serious infections, does not affect whether it is called a vaccine or not.

 

Incidentally, it is not known yet whether the vaccines currently being rolled out will prevent infection (or to what extent, since no vaccine is ever 100% effective) because in most of the trials, they simply didn't do PCR tests on the participants often enough to establish whether they were getting asymptomatic infections.

 

In the one arm of one trial (the Oxford vaccine in the UK only) where participants were regularly tested, the vaccine did seem to reduce or prevent infections.

 

The other vaccine manufacturers have said that they hope their vaccines will prevent or at least reduce infections (and the signs are good that they might) but they can't state that with confidence as they just didn't collect that data. As time goes forward, and assuming regular tests are carried out on the people getting vaccinated, that information should hopefully emerge.

Edited December 17, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[Stocky]

Barking

[oompie69]

Nuts they might be, but they have a right to choose not to get it. Never mind what they base their motivation on.

Those that choose not to get it will in no way be a threat to those that do.

However, what is not needed is opposing sides insulting and / or labeling the other side. This is  less that adult behaviour.

Time will tell if the various vaccines being tested now do what they are being touted to do.   

[dddave]

Am I in any way an "Anti-Vaxer"?: 

No.

 

Would I jump in line to be inoculated with the first batches of a new vaccine, rushed into production without the usual testing protocols?  No to that as well. 

[Lacessit]

I've had vaccinations for polio, tuberculosis, pneumonia, flu, typhoid, cholera, hepatitis, tetanus and some I can't even remember without consulting my vaccination card. Permit me to doubt I would still be here at age 77 without them. I'll be first in line for whatever COVID-19 vaccine becomes available.

Anti-vaxxers focus on the few people who have had adverse reactions to a vaccine, over the millions who benefit from them. IMO f###ing ratbags.

[Peterw42]

I am the same as the OP, I have a couple of friends who are otherwise sane, educated and informed, but buy into the antivax rubbish.

We had to throw them out of our flat earth group because of their radical views.

[farang51]

33 minutes ago, dddave said:

Would I jump in line to be inoculated with the first batches of a new vaccine, rushed into production without the usual testing protocols?  No to that as well. 

Are you in Russia or China? The vaccines released in the western countries are not rushed into production without the usual testing protocols.

 

I am more than willing to take the first shot when we get the vaccine in Denmark.

[PAWNEESE]

Those of us vaccinated in future are gonna feel invincible re Covid and gonna be very relaxed about social distancing, mask wearing etc.

 

I guess they/we can start partying to pre covid levels. More to make up lost time.

 

This will put non vaccinated people at more risk as vaccinated people may spread it even more. 3rd and 4th waves in badly hit countries.

 

Let me see  .. do I want to be protected from ill health and death from covid ( i.e follow the science) or remain a possible victim. 

 

Party as before or be at risk.

 

Durrrrrrrrrrt

[talahtnut]

I reserve judgement for 10 years, the usual period for a new drug test.

For now I rely on Hippocrates wisdom, and not the government, BBC, or MSM.

 

[Golden Triangle]

Anti vaxers are all stark stareing bonkers, if they don't want the jab let them go and work in an intensive care unit with no PPE, that'll sort the dipsticks out ????????

[EVENKEEL]

Being skeptical of the vaccine doesn't make you an anti vaxer or a nut. IMO it makes you an intelligent person. I've had all the vaccines including small pox and anthrax during the last 17 yrs. It was mandatory for my employment.

I'll take it just to make travel easier but I'm not a fan of it.

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, talahtnut said:

I reserve judgement for 10 years, the usual period for a new drug test.

If by drug you mean vaccine and if by test you mean clinical trials then ten years is not the "usual" time for clinical trials. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that in the past, the total development time for a vaccine from the beginning of the design phase to final regulatory approval, was often up to 10 years (sometimes longer).

 

However there are a few reasons why the old paradigms don't apply in the current scenario. 

 

The video below from the Oxford Vaccine Group gives various reasons why they were able to work so quickly. For one thing, when they found out about this novel coronavirus in January and started work on a vaccine, they weren't starting from scratch. They had already designed, trialled and tested a vaccine for a "disease X" over a period of about ten years. By doing so, they were able to shave as much as ten years off the time needed to develop their new vaccine.

 

https://youtu.be/ddDiyIKUP0M

 

In the past, starting with a live virus and designing a vaccine for it was something of a hit and miss process. They had to find a way to "disable" the virus enough that it wouldn't cause an infection, while retaining enough of it to stimulate a robust and effective immune response. This could take years to figure out, test for safety and efficacy, etc.

 

With the viral vector construct used by Oxford-AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, or the mRNA platform favoured by Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna, they already had a tried and true method which involved splicing a part of the genetic code for a virus into an existing vaccine construct. Also, because of previous work with the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, they even knew exactly which specific part of the coronavirus virus genome to use - the code for the spike protein. So as soon as the genetic code for this new virus was published online in January, they were able to just plug in the code and go from there.

 

Also, as one of the scientists involved in the current efforts points out, asking how a vaccine could have been developed in such a short time when it used to take ten years, is like asking why we can cross the Atlantic in a few hours now, when in the 1800’s it used to take a couple of weeks. Advances in technology, forward planning and the almost unlimited resources thrown at this, have enabled the researchers to speed things up tremendously.

Edited December 17, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Being skeptical of the vaccine doesn't make you an anti vaxer or a nut. IMO it makes you an intelligent person. I've had all the vaccines including small pox and anthrax during the last 17 yrs. It was mandatory for my employment.

I'll take it just to make travel easier but I'm not a fan of it.

What are your reasons for being skeptical?

[polpott]

3 hours ago, PAWNEESE said:

Those of us vaccinated in future are gonna feel invincible re Covid and gonna be very relaxed about social distancing, mask wearing etc.

 

I guess they/we can start partying to pre covid levels. More to make up lost time.

 

This will put non vaccinated people at more risk as vaccinated people may spread it even more. 3rd and 4th waves in badly hit countries.

 

Let me see  .. do I want to be protected from ill health and death from covid ( i.e follow the science) or remain a possible victim. 

 

Party as before or be at risk.

 

Durrrrrrrrrrt

An anti vaxxer urban myth. Zero evidence that the vaccine won't offer the protection claimed. Nuts.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by polpott

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.

 

[farang51]

4 hours ago, polpott said:

An anti vaxxer urban myth. Zero evidence that the vaccine won't offer the protection claimed. Nuts.

 

 

Well, actually, we don't know how long it will take for the antibodies to fight an infection; it may be possible to get infected and spread the virus to other people in the time from an infection and until the antibodies kill the virus. Thus, we will need to keep our distance and be alert even after being vaccinated.

 

Of course, if is not as bad as PAWNEESE  claim, but still.

[DrDave]

24 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Well, actually, we don't know how long it will take for the antibodies to fight an infection; it may be possible to get infected and spread the virus to other people in the time from an infection and until the antibodies kill the virus. Thus, we will need to keep our distance and be alert even after being vaccinated.

 

Of course, if is not as bad as PAWNEESE  claim, but still.

I agree about the contagious time period between being infected and antibodies killing the virus, however I'm of the opinion that the onus of keeping one's distance, being alert, using PPE, etc falls on those who choose not to be vaccinated. Additionally, if a significant percentage of the population refuses vaccination (say > 25%), then we'll be back where we started in terms of periodic regional lockdowns, business failures and personal financial ruin for millions until the virus has ultimately run its course through the population.

[farang51]

34 minutes ago, DrDave said:

I agree about the contagious time period between being infected and antibodies killing the virus, however I'm of the opinion that the onus of keeping one's distance, being alert, using PPE, etc falls on those who choose not to be vaccinated.

It falls on all of us. If I am vaccinated, I may get infected by one of the idiots and then in turn infect granny. It will be a poor excuse to say it was the anti-vaxer that should have used a mask etc. Besides, I guess that many of the anti-vaxers are also anti-mask. We need to be vigilant for some time; at least until we achieve herd immunity through the vaccines.

 

 

[polpott]

1 hour ago, farang51 said:

Well, actually, we don't know how long it will take for the antibodies to fight an infection; it may be possible to get infected and spread the virus to other people in the time from an infection and until the antibodies kill the virus. Thus, we will need to keep our distance and be alert even after being vaccinated.

 

Of course, if is not as bad as PAWNEESE  claim, but still.

You are correct in that we don't know for certain but its highly likely that the vaccine will offer full protection on average 10 days after completion of the course. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by polpott

[bodga]

For many  I suspect they are not using the derogatory words "Anti vaxxers" they are just cautious  that and extremely  rushed to market product may  have problems  down the line

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, bodga said:

For many  I suspect they are not using the derogatory words "Anti vaxxers" they are just cautious  that and extremely  rushed to market product may  have problems  down the line

 

There is a huge difference between people that are rationally skeptical and cautious and want to be well informed about a vaccine before taking it and people that are obsessed with calling all vaccines evil and poison as well as spreading total crazy lies that the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccine is a conspiracy theory by Bill Gates to implant chips in people. 

[RichardColeman]

I like the idea of rolling it out to the old, infirm and the seriously underlying conditioned lot first. Seems they are disguising some of the testing process as taking care of them first ! By the time my time comes, if they've killed off 50,000 of them I probably wont take it. If not, I'll take it 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sammieuk1]

If your offered a vaccine ie a way out and refuse and should you succumb treatment should be refused the people involved in getting the vaccine to market should be kissed on the a*rse forever ????  

[EVENKEEL]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What are your reasons for being skeptical?

I'm not a trusting person, getting inline for drugs because everyone is doing it isn't in my DNA. I've been pumped full of vaccines for many years in order to keep a job I loved. Now I get to be incharge of what needles I get poked with.