Anti-vaxers. Nuts, or not ?

[XBroker]

The vax the army gave me changed my life forever, & not for the better. I would never let them stick me again.

[248900_1469958220]

On 12/20/2020 at 1:32 PM, patman30 said:

"anti-vax"
is a term coined by MSM, govs etc
and used by people who are "pro mandatory vax"

many people are simply "pro choice"
there are an extremely low number of people that are actually "anti-vax"
calling for them to be banned so nobody can use them

The people who are pro choice
simply do not want something forced upon them against their will
or to be punished for choosing to live naturally without the vax
many have reasons such as religion too
many are concerned for their health, and any damage a rushed unproven vax could cause
many are concerned about vax manufacturers not being liable for any damage caused by a vax
Many simply do not want it, which should be their personal choice.

is it nuts to be cautious about ones health ?

All very reasonable points. I am frustrated by those that lump all  as 'anti vaxxers' anyone that even raises reasonable questions about this very very new vaccine. I also am VERY suspicious  about how the media does not at all mention or focus on even the C.D.C's 'official ' infection fatality rate for Covid 19. It seems the figure does NOT fit the narrative they are spinning. No, this whole Covid 19 situation has been handled very badly by the media....and others...remember people collapsing in the streets??? Remember Chinese doctors skin turning black??? Remember half a million were going to die in the U.k alone?? Come on people, we NEED to be able to question things. 

[patman30]

1 hour ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

All very reasonable points. I am frustrated by those that lump all  as 'anti vaxxers' anyone that even raises reasonable questions about this very very new vaccine. I also am VERY suspicious  about how the media does not at all mention or focus on even the C.D.C's 'official ' infection fatality rate for Covid 19. It seems the figure does NOT fit the narrative they are spinning. No, this whole Covid 19 situation has been handled very badly by the media....and others...remember people collapsing in the streets??? Remember Chinese doctors skin turning black??? Remember half a million were going to die in the U.k alone?? Come on people, we NEED to be able to question things. 

not to mention, the very questionable public injections, bells palsy, and fainting nurses,
and the FACT 2.8% of those who recieved the vax by the 18th of Dec (3,150 out of 112,807)
had a response that required medical treatment and prevented them from working etc.
for the global population, that would mean 219 million people would suffer a bad reaction from the vax????‍♂️
and suddenly a "more deadly" mutated strain narrative now being pushed, which should render the vax useless
as every year people are told they need the new flu vax as flu mutates
so surely the same logic applies

@Salerno, clicking the sad reaction does not make these FACTS untrue (or any of my other comments you react too)
yes it is a sad situation, but these are offical figures from CDC

Edited December 22, 2020 by patman30

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, patman30 said:

FACT 2.8% of those who recieved the vax by the 18th of Dec

Link to a credible source pretty please.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Surelynot

[patman30]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Link to a credible source pretty please.

why bold credible as if to imply my words are not true, just because they do not satisfy your beliefs ?
GOOGLE is your friend.

is the CDC still considered credible on here ?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf

 

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, patman30 said:

why bold credible as if to imply my words are not true, just because they do not satisfy your beliefs ?
GOOGLE is your friend.

is the CDC still considered credible on here ?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf

 

**unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional

 

Shame there isn't a breakdown of this....or is there?

 

I am assuming the  (,) means or and not and.

 

 

[Surelynot]

5 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

 

Just playing devil's advocate.....

 

**unable to perform normal daily activities (sore arm 98%), unable to work (Off color 1.9%), required care from doctor or healthcare professional (0.1% Allergic reaction).......

Edited December 22, 2020 by Surelynot

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, patman30 said:

do some more research before praising this vax

Sorry...where did I do that?

[patman30]

8 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Just playing devil's advocate.....

 

**unable to perform normal daily activities (sore arm 98%), unable to work (Off color 1.9%), required care from doctor or healthcare professional (0.1% Allergic reaction).......

a bit of exaggerating there, not go about their day with a sore arm?
your cognitive dissonance is kicking in????
off colour means cannot work, come on now
i would argue ALL 3 mean bedridden

Edited December 22, 2020 by patman30

[patman30]

a "sore" arm does not prevent people from going about their day, or working
some people may be able to afford a day off when they feel a little down
the vast majority of people get to work, they cannot afford not too

your comment about being selfish or stupid for not having the vax, implies you are positive about it (the praise)

if the vax only lessens symptoms, then only the vulnerable need to have it should they choose too
there should be no discrimination or insults towards those who choose to not have it.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

 

Vaccines avert between 2 and 3 million deaths each year, but far too many infants still aren't receiving lifesaving immunizations, according to the World Health Organization. Saturday marked the end of World Immunization Week, an awareness event that highlights gains and areas of need when it comes to disseminating vaccines.

 

Not a bad result overall.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, TSF said:

Doesn't mean anything, lots of people faint after receiving injections. A few years ago I had a blood test at an Australian clinic and as I'm a tad squeamish about needles and injections I felt a odd immediately after. The nurse said to me: "Don't you go fainting on me, I'll have to fill out a report if you do, and it's my lunchtime now, I'm on my way out after you." 

Exactly.....not grounds for refusing the vaccine by any stretch.

[GroveHillWanderer]

42 minutes ago, patman30 said:

if the vax only lessens symptoms, then only the vulnerable need to have it should they choose too
there should be no discrimination or insults towards those who choose to not have it.

The vaccines approved so far don't just "lessen symptoms" though. Based on the trial results, they actually prevent death or any serious complications from the disease.

 

Everybody is vulnerable to this disease. Some may have less serious (or no) symptoms but don't forget that even people who are not badly affected themselves can pass it on to other, less fortunate individuals.

 

Also don't forget the growing number of people (including many fit and healthy young people with no underlying conditions) that have long-lasting, debilitating after-effects, even after not having had serious symptoms to start with.

[robblok]

 

 

On 12/20/2020 at 1:32 PM, patman30 said:

"anti-vax"
is a term coined by MSM, govs etc
and used by people who are "pro mandatory vax"

many people are simply "pro choice"
there are an extremely low number of people that are actually "anti-vax"
calling for them to be banned so nobody can use them

The people who are pro choice
simply do not want something forced upon them against their will
or to be punished for choosing to live naturally without the vax
many have reasons such as religion too
many are concerned for their health, and any damage a rushed unproven vax could cause
many are concerned about vax manufacturers not being liable for any damage caused by a vax
Many simply do not want it, which should be their personal choice.

is it nuts to be cautious about ones health ?

Its quite simple people should be free not to vaccinate. But government should be free to not let people who havent vaccinated enter their countries. Choices have consequences. Many of the anti vax want free travel ect while not wanting to be vaccinated. That is not being pro choice. That is selfish. You either accept to be vaccinated or accept that there will be things you cant do if your not vaccinated.

 

If they would accept that I would have a far better opinion of anti vaxers. 

[Surelynot]

10 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

why are pro-vaxxers so hell-bent that everybody MUST be vaccinated

Whoops...didn't know they were...I think they are just resentful of the fact that they (anti-vaxxers) are happy to stand back.....take no risks.....and benefit from others being less selfish.....or maybe they are just scared of needles??

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

If the vaccine provides 100% protection as some claim, why are pro-vaxxers so hell-bent that everybody MUST be vaccinated instead of allowing people with genuine concerns to opt out.

Note: And the 'free-ride' argument that is often used just doesn't stick, because the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission.

Could you please give me a link that a vaccination does not prevent infection or transmission. (from a credible site) All I read is that the information is not there yet. So can't say it will or wont. Though the Australian one might prevent it. 

 

But there is not enough data yet to be sure of anything. Yet you an anti vaxer claims to know it. How surprising 

 

https://theconversation.com/a-covid-19-vaccine-that-prevents-both-the-disease-and-viral-transmission-is-the-aim-until-then-heres-what-we-need-to-do-151839

Edited December 22, 2020 by robblok

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Could you please give me a link that a vaccination does not prevent infection or transmission. (from a credible site)

From a quick Google search > here the answer that Google gives on that question.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

From a quick Google search > here the answer that Google gives on that question.

Maybe you should read more, there is just not enough data on it yet to be sure. Yet you seem to know it. I would say wait and see until more is known.

 

They said could (as in not sure). So the free ride thing is not off the table yet. 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Maybe you should read more, there is just not enough data on it yet to be sure. Yet you seem to know it. I would say wait and see until more is known.

They said could (as in not sure). So the free ride thing is not off the table yet.

But at least, one should refrain from using the 'free ride' argument to accuse those opting not to be vaccinated, 'until more is known'.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Peter Denis

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But at least, one should refrain from using the 'free ride' argument to accuse those opting not to be vaccinated, 'until more is known'.

Why the free ride argument still goes until its proven that it does not work. Indications are it does (at least some of the versions).  But if proven it does not help then sure take the free ride argument off the table. (and travel restrictions of those who don't take the vaccine) But until that time governments can choose who they allow to enter the country.

[Peter Denis]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No he has a point some of the vaccines just prevent the disease from developing. Not the spread of it. However they are still not sure there is not enough data on it. He however has made his mind up by saying it does not prevent it while there are indications that it does but it has not been researched enough.

https://theconversation.com/a-covid-19-vaccine-that-prevents-both-the-disease-and-viral-transmission-is-the-aim-until-then-heres-what-we-need-to-do-151839

That article explain it.

Appreciate your intellectual honesty for admitting that it has not been researched enough and that the '100% protection' argument with which the covid-vaccines are touted is therefore too simplistic and possibly even dead-wrong.

[scorecard]

On 12/17/2020 at 2:00 PM, Hervey Bay said:

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.

 

We have 4 bus drivers in my village here in Australia, all appear to be very logical and intelligent. But a few days back I was getting on the bus and the lady before me asked the driver 'where's the hand sanitizer spray bottle?'

 

The driver is a retired engineer and is also a qualified ambulance attendant (in Australia 4 - 5 year university degree), speaks well / logically in all conversations,  his response, 'I put it back in the main office, I don't believe in hand sanitizing, everybody has to die'. 

 

I waited 15 minutes for the next bus.

Edited December 22, 2020 by scorecard

[J Town]

I consider them bat sh!t crazy.

 

Having said that, I'll wait and see what reactions this vaccine has before I'll roll up my sleeve. I'm relatively safe - I stay at home unless shopping for necessities and always wear a mask outside.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Peter Denis said:

Appreciate your intellectual honesty for admitting that it has not been researched enough and that the '100% protection' argument with which the covid-vaccines are touted is therefore too simplistic and possibly even dead-wrong.

Yes they could be dead wrong, but there are indications that it helps. But so far it needs to be studied more. But it also shows its not sure yet. But if it does not help prevent the spread then I don't see the point to vaccinate those that don't want it. 

 

I am also not pro forced vaccination just that those who don't should live with the consequences of it. Like higher insurance costs, no travel ect. (the no travel only offcourse if the vaccine counters the spread if that does not work then there is no point in not letting them not travel)

 

Just lets wait and see (something that is wise anyway). 

[J Town]

What creates a question in my mind is how quickly this vaccine was created with a 95% efficacy. This has never happened before, and every news outlet has described it as "incredible." If it's too good to be true . . .

[Salerno]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

(the no travel only offcourse if the vaccine counters the spread if that does not work then there is no point in not letting them not travel)

 

Other than countries not wishing to import potential hospital cases when ICU beds aren't infinite. The jury is out re remaining contagious or not but not on minimising issues related to being positive to covid as far as I'm aware. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Salerno said:

 

Other than countries not wishing to import potential hospital cases when ICU beds aren't infinite. The jury is out re remaining contagious or not but not on minimising issues related to being positive to covid as far as I'm aware. 

Sure that could be a reason, anyway that is up to countries to decide. But for me it was more the spread and herd effectivity that was important. If these vaccines really don't do that then i don't see the point of prohibiting travel if they have a good insurance.

 

I think there will be a lot of people vaccinating so I doubt hospital beds would be a problem as it certainly would help lowering the numbers.

[robblok]

As mentioned in this topic before they are not sure yet IF it helps against the spread. There are indications that it does but because of the scale of trials not yet enough data. What i read is that these vaccines reduce the effect from the disease not prevent it. 

 

I am as pro vax as you can get (within limits) but it seems they work different then other vaccins that prevent spread. These just seem to prevent the disease from having serious effects. (and there are indications that they prevent spread too) But that is not their main course of action.

 

Just read it I was unaware of it before too.

 

https://theconversation.com/a-covid-19-vaccine-that-prevents-both-the-disease-and-viral-transmission-is-the-aim-until-then-heres-what-we-need-to-do-151839

Edited December 22, 2020 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[bestie]

I'm not anti- vaccine but I'm not sure if I will take it. I would probably wait for a study to show the long term side effects. They want to get this vaccine into my body after a few month of research. No thanks. That's what's worries me. Let other people take it first and I will wait and see. 

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, bestie said:

Let other people take it first and I will wait and see. 

Well I "hope" you don't get hit by a bus whilst your are waiting around to see if the rest of us die.