Who will never vaccinate except if forced to for visa reasons ? and do you think that they will force us ?

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

How do you spread it on purpose? You wished death on those who spread covid. 

 

I'm vaccinated but will not worry about the other guy. 

How do you spread it on purpose, if you know you got covid and you start putting saliva on surfaces (was in the news that someone did that) Or if you know you have covid and you start sneezing in someone's face on purpose. 

 

I did not wish dead on those who spread it never said so. Maybe that is a liberal interpretation of what i said. 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, LarrySR said:

Suppose we hit the body with a tremendous ultraviolet or just very powerful light, bringing the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, sounds interesting.

And I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. It sounds interesting to me, so we'll see.

But the whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that's pretty powerful.

 

It would kill us... We would only survive a couple of days without viruses and bacteria in our body.

 

 

[Tanomazu]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Maybe you should read what i posted, I did not say 10% die i was talking about long Covid an often forgotten risk by antivaxxers.

 

Again the red herring of infected vs not infected. Its about hospitalization. 

 

• Unvaccinated people are about 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated, according to a CDC study released Tuesday.
• The new study also found that unvaccinated people were nearly five times more likely to be infected with Covid than vaccinated people.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

 

Again I don't dispute that getting covid might protect longer but the risk of covid and suffering problems from it or death is far higher then the risks of vaccination. Proven fact.

 

That prediction of hers might or might not come true but in the meantime those what are vaccinated are 29 times less likely to end up in hospital.

 

 

Unfortunately the study you quote is contradicted by the recent Imperial College study which found that vaccination only provided 49% greater protection against infection, not 2900% greater protection, and that CNBC study has not been peer reviewed. There is not even a link to the CNBC study you quote, so I am assuming you have not even read it?

 

If you want to read how the Imperial College researchers came to a completely different conclusion, you can do so here:

 

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/react1_r13_final_preprint_final.pdf

 

So you really can't say that vaccinated are 29 times less likely to be hospitalised, when they are only 0.49 times less likely to be infected. Of course you also don't seem to understand that of the infected only about 14% actually are hospitalised, and of those only 2.2% go to the ICU.

 

Thus the risk is quite small. and as we know applies more to the obese, the elderly etc.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Unfortunately the study you quote is contradicted by the recent Imperial College study which found that vaccination only provided 49% greater protection against infection, not 2900% greater protection, and that CNBC study has not been peer reviewed. There is not even a link to the CNBC study you quote, so I am assuming you have not even read it?

 

If you want to read how the Imperial College researchers came to a completely different conclusion, you can do so here:

 

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/react1_r13_final_preprint_final.pdf

 

So you really can't say that vaccinated are 29 times less likely to be hospitalised, when they are only 0.49 times less likely to be infected. Of course you also don't seem to understand that of the infected only about 14% actually are hospitalised, and of those only 2.2% go to the ICU.

 

Thus the risk is quite small. and as we know applies more to the obese, the elderly etc.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

 

 

You clearly don't understand a thing, maybe you should read my next paragraph slowly.

 

The vaccines indeed protect you for 49% against infection BUT it ALSO makes sure that when you get it your far less likely to get into hospital. So it helps your body to fight it better so you don't end up in  hospital. You seem to think that it only helps to prevent infection but it does MORE then that it helps you prevent serious hospitalization. That is what all those articles are about. Im not sure how many people have told you this but you keep ignoring it. 

 

So to get a resistance against covid your willing to take a 14% chance of hospitalization and a 2.2% going to the ICU. Those numbers are far higher and worse then the side effects from the vaccine. So it makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

[Tanomazu]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

You clearly don't understand a thing, maybe you should read my next paragraph slowly.

 

The vaccines indeed protect you for 49% against infection BUT it ALSO makes sure that when you get it your far less likely to get into hospital. So it helps your body to fight it better so you don't end up in  hospital. You seem to think that it only helps to prevent infection but it does MORE then that it helps you prevent serious hospitalization. That is what all those articles are about. Im not sure how many people have told you this but you keep ignoring it. 

 

So to get a resistance against covid your willing to take a 14% chance of hospitalization and a 2.2% going to the ICU. Those numbers are far higher and worse then the side effects from the vaccine. So it makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Oh I see, you're trying the trickery of moving the goal posts from infection to hospitalisation, very sneaky. Okay, I see what your'e doing.

 

However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the study you have not actually read, which is not peer reviewed, is correct, and let's look at hospitalisation only.

 

Of those who get infected with Covid the very vast majority, namely 80%, will have a mild case or be asymptomatic, thus, not require hospitalisation at all.

 

"The majority of those who test positive for COVID-19 will survive the disease and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) states that, based on available data, approximately 80% of those who test positive for COVID-19 experience a mild illness or are asymptomatic "

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

Of those who require hospitalisation only 2.2% will go to ICU. So the 29% you refer to has to be seen in that context, it would not apply to the 97.1% of the global population who are not infected, it would not apply to 80% of those who do get infected. And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case.

 

Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?

 

Doesn't make sense at all. Particularly in view of the fact that studies now show natural immunity is longer lasting. And in view of the leading experts like Gilbert now being on record as saying that the virus will be no worse than common cold.

 

I mean you can recover from Covid. How are you going to recover from a clot in the brain? It's not all about numbers. What about people who have heart issue risks, and the Israeli study showing the vaccines increase the risk of heart inflammation?

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Tanomazu

[robblok]

35 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Oh I see, you're trying the trickery of moving the goal posts from infection to hospitalisation, very sneaky. Okay, I see what your'e doing.

 

However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the study you have not actually read, which is not peer reviewed, is correct, and let's look at hospitalisation only.

 

Of those who get infected with Covid the very vast majority, namely 80%, will have a mild case or be asymptomatic, thus, not require hospitalisation at all.

 

"The majority of those who test positive for COVID-19 will survive the disease and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) states that, based on available data, approximately 80% of those who test positive for COVID-19 experience a mild illness or are asymptomatic "

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

Of those who require hospitalisation only 2.2% will go to ICU. So the 29% you refer to has to be seen in that context, it would not apply to the 97.1% of the global population who are not infected, it would not apply to 80% of those who do get infected. And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case.

 

Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?

 

Doesn't make sense at all. Particularly in view of the fact that studies now show natural immunity is longer lasting. And in view of the leading experts like Gilbert now being on record as saying that the virus will be no worse than common cold.

 

I mean you can recover from Covid. How are you going to recover from a clot in the brain? It's not all about numbers. What about people who have heart issue risks, and the Israeli study showing the vaccines increase the risk of heart inflammation?

 

Oh i always thought that protection against dying and hospitalization was more important then infection. The study i quoted is one of many, and this data has been available for a long time. Strange that you just notice it. 

 

Can i ask if you have been educated to more then just basic education. Because you keep messing up. You turn 29 times into 29% I mean how stupid can you be. You act like it is news to you that vaccines prevent hospitalization in other ways then preventing infections. I mean this has been discussed countless times yet for you its news.

 

Can i ask you did you read the research you posted ?

 

They talk about 19789 cases and of those cases 1476 died. Now i was taught that 1476/19789*100=7,45% death rate.

 

.1 Analytical population

Initially n=26,106 COVID-19 cases confirmed between 2^nd March and 31^st July 2020 were identified for inclusion. Confirmed cases were excluded from this analysis where ‘any underlying condition’ (yes, no, unknown, or missing) was either unknown or missing. Therefore, analyses were restricted to confirmed cases with complete data on underlying conditions. This resulted in a subset of 19,789 (75.8%) confirmed COVID-19 cases included. A higher proportion of women and younger aged cases had missing data on the ESF. Further, regional variation in the proportion of missing data was observed and where data was collected outside residential care settings.

Of the subset with complete data, 14.2% (n=2,811) were hospitalised, 2.2% (n=438) were admitted to ICU, and 7.5% (n=1,476) had died. Among those who had been admitted to ICU, 20.5% (n=90) had died.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

Edited September 23, 2021 by robblok

[Someone Else]

"Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?"

 

But you haven't compared the relative risks of unvaccinated hospitalizations vs. vaccine side effects in an objective manner, which is the whole point.  Case in point, you fail to quantitate the side effects and only chose to speak of the most rare and dramatic.  Your and the other misinformation peddlers rely heavily on such blatant cherry picking.

 

" And in view of the leading experts like Gilbert now being on record as saying that the virus will be no worse than common cold."

 

You keep repeating this over and over again, but what she said is it will eventually become like the common cold.  "“It’s just a question of how long it’s going to take to get there and what measures we’re going to have to take to manage it in the meantime."  That statement has nothing to do with current conditions and in no way means "everyone that got vaccinated made a mistake and those that did not get vaccinated got it right" as you conclude.  This is not at all what she is saying.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-coronavirus-vaccine-common-cold-astrazeneca-oxford-sarah-gilbert-b956846.html

 

Not sure why this sub forum caters so generously to the rabid antivax misinformation cult, I'm sure Aetna is pleased to have sponsored a refuge for these antisocial dregs.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Someone Else

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Someone Else said:

"Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?"

 

But you haven't compared the relative risks of unvaccinated hospitalizations vs. vaccine side effects in an objective manner, which is the whole point.  Case in point, you fail to quantitate the side effects and only chose to talk the most rare and dramatic.  Your are the other misinformation peddlers rely heavily on such blatant cherry picking.

 

" And in view of the leading experts like Gilbert now being on record as saying that the virus will be no worse than common cold."

 

You keep repeating this over and over again, but what she said is it will eventually become like the common cold.  "“It’s just a question of how long it’s going to take to get there and what measures we’re going to have to take to manage it in the meantime."  That statement has nothing to do with current conditions and in no way means "everyone that got vaccinated made a mistake and those that did not get vaccinated got it right" as you conclude.  This is not at all what she is saying.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-coronavirus-vaccine-common-cold-astrazeneca-oxford-sarah-gilbert-b956846.html

 

Not sure why this sub forum caters so generously to the rabid antivax misinformation cult, I'm sure Aetna is pleased to have sponsored a refuge for these antisocial dregs.

He did not even read the links he provided himself. He totally misrepresented / lied about what was in it. 

 

He did the same with the lady you quoted. 

 

But its really embarrassing if you don't read the links you use as evidence. 

 

They had a death rate of 7.5% there (IMHO quite high) and he kept banging on how low the risk was. Then he said the 7.5% was from the ICU people on ICU while the report stated that 1476 in total died that is almost 4 times as many as who got in ICU. Guess it never came to his mind that people could die before they got to the ICU. 

 

The problem with antivaxxers is that you can't convince them no matter what you say. 

[EVENKEEL]

Even our beloved Dr Fauci can't answer if people who have a natural covid immunity should be jabbed.

 

http://www.truenewshub.com/summit/fauci-struggles-to-answer-why-americans-with-natural-covid-immunity-should-get-vaccinated/

 

“So as we talk about vaccine mandates…people say I’ve already had COVID, I’m protected and now the study says maybe even more protected than the vaccine alone – should they also get the vaccine, how do you make the case to them?” he asked Fauci.

“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” responded Fauci, before going on to claim that the research paper didn’t provide any solid evidence as to the “durability” of natural infection to COVID.

[Tanomazu]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Can i ask if you have been educated to more then just basic education. Because you keep messing up. You turn 29 times into 29% I mean how stupid can you be. You act like it is news to you that vaccines prevent hospitalization in other ways then preventing infections. I mean this has been discussed countless times yet for you its news.

 

I have been educated to postgraduate level at a highly respected UK university. How about you?

 

I had actually way above written 2900%, so yes, you found a typo, you can keep it. If that is what your argument rests on, it's very poor.

 

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

They talk about 19789 cases and of those cases 1476 died. Now i was taught that 1476/19789*100=7,45% death rate.

Lol, in the post above you, I literally wrote 7.5% died. So you're basically saying you have no arguments at all? Okay.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Tanomazu

[Tanomazu]

15 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

"Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?"

 

But you haven't compared the relative risks of unvaccinated hospitalizations vs. vaccine side effects in an objective manner, which is the whole point.  Case in point, you fail to quantitate the side effects and only chose to talk the most rare and dramatic.  Your are the other misinformation peddlers rely heavily on such blatant cherry picking.

As I made clear, you can not recover from a stroke caused by a clot in your brain. It is a fallacy that you can weigh that up with quantification. You can recover from covid easily. You can not recover easily from a stroke caused by a blood clot in the brain. If you think the risk of a blood clot in the brain, paralysis, heart inflammation etc is to be quantified away I disagree.

 

That's why I told Roblok, it's not all about numbers. The seriousness of some of the side effects also needs to be considered.

[robblok]

Just now, Tanomazu said:

I have been educated to postgraduate level at a highly respected UK university. How about you?

 

I had actually way above written 2900%, so yes, you found a typo, you can keep it. If that what your argument rests on, it's very poor.

 

Lol, in the post above you, I literally wrote 7.5% died. So you're basically saying you have no arguments at all? Okay.

You said 7.5% people in ICU died that was not the case it was 7.5% of all covid cases in this study. Must be embarrassing to have it wrong that badly.

 

Below what you stated

 

And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case

 

That was not what the study said of the 19789 cases 1476 died and 438 went to ICU of those that went to ICU 90 died.

 

Can you explain to me how 90 / 438  * 100 = 20.5% (what they taught me at school) becomes 7.5% of all ICU cases in your story.

 

Maybe next time read your evidence because the 7.5% was based on all cases. 

 

Do you think 7.5% chance to die is low ? I find the death rate shocking. I think its normally a lot lower. But the study you use as evidence comes at 7.5% and you use it to prove death rate is low. ????

 

Maybe you should ask the university for a refund.

 

[Tanomazu]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

He did not even read the links he provided himself. He totally misrepresented / lied about what was in it. 

 

He did the same with the lady you quoted. 

 

But its really embarrassing if you don't read the links you use as evidence. 

 

They had a death rate of 7.5% there (IMHO quite high) and he kept banging on how low the risk was.

 

This is about on a par, as outrageous lies go, as your repeated call for those who do not want to vaccinate to die, but nobody takes that seriously anyway.

 

I had posted the links of all the statements I quoted quite carefully, nothing was misrepresented. You are misrepresenting my posts.

 

If you had read the Lancet study properly you would have seen "Therefore, analyses were restricted to confirmed cases with complete data on underlying conditions.", which explains why they had a 7.5% death rate, whereas globally it is 1.9-2%.

 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

As I made clear, you can not recover from a stroke caused by a clot in your brain. It is a fallacy that you can weigh that up with quantification. You can recover from covid easily. You can not recover easily from a stroke caused by a blood clot in the brain. If you think the risk of a blood clot in the brain, paralysis, heart inflammation etc is to be quantified away I disagree.

 

That's why I told Roblok, it's not all about numbers. The seriousness of some of the side effects also needs to be considered.

Good thing for you its not all numbers because you proven to have no feeling for numbers at all. ????

 

 go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die   (by your own admission based on your analisis of the study)

 

Yet the numbers are 438 people go to ICU 90 died and that makes 20.5% ????

 

and the 7.5% you said that was the fatality rate on ICU was actually the total fatality rate from 19789 cases 1476 died.

 

I would never claim 7.5% rate from the confirmed cases as low. ????

[Tanomazu]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

You said 7.5% people in ICU died that was not the case it was 7.5% of all covid cases in this study. Must be embarrassing to have it wrong that badly.

 

Below what you stated

 

And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case

 

 

 

You have completely misrepresented my post. I wrote of those who go to hospital, ie of all hospitalised people 7.5% died, not those in the ICU only. It's not my fault if you can't read English, Roblok.

 

I quoted 7.5% quite clearly above, and obviously it was of all cases.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Tanomazu

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

You have completely misrepresented my post. I wrote of those who go to hospital, ie of all hospitalised people 7.5% died, not those in the ICU only. It's not my fault if you can't read English, Roblok.

 

I quoted 7.5% quite clearly above, and obviously it was of all cases.

No i have not you state that 7.5% of those on ICU die  do you deny writing what i underline and made bold ?

 

And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case

 

While as i have shown 20% of those who go to the ICU die  90 / 438 * 100 = 20,5%

 

What did i misread please tell me.

 

You cant help it that i cant read English true. Just as i cant help it your stupid and not good with numbers.

 

*edit* now its 7.5% from those who go to hospital died your digging deeper and deeper.

 

2811 were hospitalized of the 19789 

1476 died

 

2811 * 7.5% = 210 deaths 

 

But i don't see that anywhere in the study.  They never mention 210 deaths. They never mention that the 7.5% is from people who went to hospital.

 

All they said from 19789 people 1476 died  that is the 7.5% They make no statement about how many died who went to hospital only that 90 out of the ICU people died.

 

Do point out to me where it says that the 7.5% is from people in hospital or admit you were wrong.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

just for the people who want to read it too above the he posted. Just compare it to his statements. You guys be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. Because as an antivaxxer he will never admit it.

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by robblok

[Tanomazu]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

No i have not you state that 7.5% of those on ICU die  do you deny writing what i underline and made bold ?

Sorry, I only speak English. Please try to maybe put your query in Dutch so I can understand it.

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

You are disagreeing with the Professor Dame Gilbert, who created the Astra Zeneca vaccine?

 

Seems a bit confident on your part.

You twist my words which is no surprise as you've twisted what Gilbert has said as well in order to to support your anti-vaxxer drivel.

Lame.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Phoenix Rising

[robblok]

Just now, Tanomazu said:

Sorry, I only speak English. Please try to maybe put your query in Dutch so I can understand it.

Il keep it simple you now say that the 7.5% is from people hospitalized.  That would be 210 people 2811 * 7.5%.

 

Can you show me where that is mentioned in the text.

 

You have completely misrepresented my post. I wrote of those who go to hospital, ie of all hospitalised people 7.5% died, not those in the ICU only

 

IMHO the 7.5% is from the total number of covid cases. They don't mention anything about what percentage of people hospitalized died.  So i like to know where you got that from. 

 

According to what i have learned of English the ie  you put there means that is to say.

 

So you say that you mean the 7.5% is of hospitalized. But i really cant find that in the paper. They only say its of the total covid cases. So that does not match with what you say.

 

MUST BE MY LACK OF ENGLISH COULD REALLY NOT BE THAT YOUR MISTAKEN AND DESPERATELY TRYING TO COVER FOR IT

[robblok]

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

You twist my words which is no surprise as you've twisted what Gilbert has said as well. And all to support your anti-vaxxer drivel.

Lame.

Don't worry about it if you follow the argument I have with him he is not even sure about what he wrote himself. 

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Don't worry about it if you follow the argument I have with him he is not even sure about what he wrote himself. 

Why am I not surprised.....

[pgrahmm]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

As a parent of a young child I wouldn't give this vaccine to my kid no way. It's ironic how those with no kids can sit back and quote a person in a white lab coat and believe their data. Get back to me in a decade.

The schools are vaxing.....We were given a choice - but, no vax = no school....

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

As a parent of a young child I wouldn't give this vaccine to my kid no way. It's ironic how those with no kids can sit back and quote a person in a white lab coat and believe their data. Get back to me in a decade.

So, it's only people with no kids who support vaccinating children with covid? Ya got some evidence to support that nonsense?  As for quoting people in white lab coats, that's actually a tactic employed by anti-vaxxers who cite all sorts of fringe doctors to support their claims. Those who support childhood vaccinations cite the overwhelming majority of virologists and epidemiologist, regardless of what these actual experts happen to be wearing.

[EVENKEEL]

12 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

The schools are vaxing.....We were given a choice - but, no vax = no school....

What age, what country, what vaccine?

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, it's only people with no kids who support vaccinating children with covid? Ya got some evidence to support that nonsense?  As for quoting people in white lab coats, that's actually a tactic employed by anti-vaxxers who cite all sorts of fringe doctors to support their claims. Those who support childhood vaccinations cite the overwhelming majority of virologists and epidemiologist, regardless of what these actual experts happen to be wearing.

If you can't repeat my post's meaning correctly maybe better to copy and paste. Again this is not a vaccine that has a proven track record with anyone regardless of age, so I would be extremely hesitant to vaccinate my youngster here in Thailand. 

[Tanomazu]

29 minutes ago, robblok said:

Don't worry about it if you follow the argument I have with him he is not even sure about what he wrote himself. 

I'm very clearly about what I wrote:

 

1. Professor Sarah Gilbert, the inventor of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine has said that the virus will become more like a common cold:

 

"Gilbert suggested, however, that illness caused by the virus would become ever milder. She said: “We tend to see slow genetic drift of the virus and there will be gradual immunity developing in the population as there is to all the other seasonal coronaviruses.”

These other coronavirus are causes of the common cold and Gilbert said: “Eventually Sars-CoV-2 will become one of those.”

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-19-will-just-end-up-causing-a-cold-says-oxford-vaccine-creator-sarah-gilbert-npkds93zd#top

 

2. Natural immunity is longer lasting than vaccine induced immunity

 

"Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

 

3. Vaccines only provide 49% protection against infection from the Delta variant

 

"The researchers estimated that two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine are 49% effective at preventing infection with the delta variant, in line with recent data from Israel and much lower than previous estimates."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/08/04/fully-vaccinated-half-as-likely-to-catch-delta-covid-variant-and-less-likely-to-infect-others-study-finds/?sh=299660bd281c

 

Given the fact that only 2.9% of the world population even have the virus, meaning 97.1% do not have the virus, and given data form the Lancet that of those who have the virus 80% only have a mild or asymptomatic course of illness, hospitalisation of those who have it is only required in 14.2% of cases, and of those only 2.2% have to go to the ICU it is very clear that the risk of dying of Covid is considerably smaller than initially reported.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

Given that Professor Gilbert further underlines that the virus will be akin to the common cold indeed one has to conclude that those who have decided not to vaccinate got it right, and those who decided to vaccinate did so for very little protection against a very small risk, yet took on new risks.

 

Clearly those who decide not to vaccinate have come out on top.

 

[Tanomazu]

46 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You twist my words which is no surprise as you've twisted what Gilbert has said as well in order to to support your anti-vaxxer drivel.

Lame.

I have not twisted what Professor Gilbert has said, I have in fact quoted it and provided the link to her statements.

 

You are in fact misrepresenting my posts, which is indeed lame.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

Oh I see, you're trying the trickery of moving the goal posts from infection to hospitalisation, very sneaky. Okay, I see what your'e doing.

 

However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the study you have not actually read, which is not peer reviewed, is correct, and let's look at hospitalisation only.

 

Of those who get infected with Covid the very vast majority, namely 80%, will have a mild case or be asymptomatic, thus, not require hospitalisation at all.

 

"The majority of those who test positive for COVID-19 will survive the disease and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) states that, based on available data, approximately 80% of those who test positive for COVID-19 experience a mild illness or are asymptomatic "

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00074-0/fulltext

 

Of those who require hospitalisation only 2.2% will go to ICU. So the 29% you refer to has to be seen in that context, it would not apply to the 97.1% of the global population who are not infected, it would not apply to 80% of those who do get infected. And even if you DO have to go to hospital, only 2.2% go to the ICU, and of those only 7.5% die, worst case.

 

Do you not see how tiny the risk is? And for that you'd risk blood clot, stroke, paralysis, heart inflammation etc, of the "adverse effects" that we know, to say nothing of what may come in the future?

 

Doesn't make sense at all. Particularly in view of the fact that studies now show natural immunity is longer lasting. And in view of the leading experts like Gilbert now being on record as saying that the virus will be no worse than common cold.

 

I mean you can recover from Covid. How are you going to recover from a clot in the brain? It's not all about numbers. What about people who have heart issue risks, and the Israeli study showing the vaccines increase the risk of heart inflammation?

 

You're argument is standard of the doublethink of anti-covid vaxxers. On the one hand, you cite the small odds of being seriously ill with covid. On the other hand, you cite the vastly smaller odds of suffering a blood clot from vaccination. On top of which, not getting vaccinated puts you at greater risk for those blood clots.

 

You're more likely to get a blood clot after COVID infection than with the vaccine

The risks of getting a blood clot if you contract COVID-19 is far greater than if you receive the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, according to a new BMJ study.

The peer-reviewed study analyzed 30 million people vaccinated in England between December 2020 and April 2021. Researchers accounted for the hospitalization rates or death from blood clots, as well as other blood disorders, within 28 days of either a positive coronavirus test or receiving the first dose of the vaccine.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/27/blood-clot-risk-doubles-after-covid-infection-compared-vaccine/5615119001/

 

 

 

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

I have not twisted what Professor Gilbert has said, I have in fact quoted it and provided the link to her statements.

 

You are in fact misrepresenting my posts, which is indeed lame.

Gilbert "suggested" that it "tends" to reduce "eventually".

 

I'll wait for peer-reviewed papers rather than bank on her suggested, eventual, tendencies...

 

Thanks tho!!

[Tanomazu]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're argument is standard of the doublethink of anti-covid vaxxers. On the one hand, you cite the small odds of being seriously ill with covid. On the other hand, you cite the vastly smaller odds of suffering a blood clot from vaccination. On top of which, not getting vaccinated puts you at greater risk for those blood clots.

 

You're more likely to get a blood clot after COVID infection than with the vaccine

The risks of getting a blood clot if you contract COVID-19 is far greater than if you receive the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines, according to a new BMJ study.

The peer-reviewed study analyzed 30 million people vaccinated in England between December 2020 and April 2021. Researchers accounted for the hospitalization rates or death from blood clots, as well as other blood disorders, within 28 days of either a positive coronavirus test or receiving the first dose of the vaccine.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/27/blood-clot-risk-doubles-after-covid-infection-compared-vaccine/5615119001/

 

 

 

Again, clearly you fail to comprehend the simple fact that you can recover from Covid fairly easily, 80% of people who have it have mild or no symptoms. Whereas the odds of surviving a stroke from a blood clot in the brain are much smaller.

 

You can't reduce everything to numbers.

 

It's not just blood clots. Israeli researchers have found that Pfizer can cause heart inflammation. The EMA has just added a paralysis syndrome to the long list of side-effects and "adverse events".

 

If you want to run that risk on the off chance of getting something which 97.1% of the population don't have, and which Professor Gilbert, who invented Astra-Zeneca, said will be effectively like a common cold, then it's your life.

 

But don't pretend you can tell others what to do. Because it certainly looks like those who have decided not to vaccinate have made the right decision. If the virus is going to be like a common cold, if vaccines only protect 49% from infection but come with very serious side effects, and if natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity, why should anyone risk these very serious side-effects from the vaccinations?