Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?

[richard_smith237]

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It's all very nice to use this reasonable, mitigating language now that the dust has settled, but at the time, if concentration camps had been opened and the unvaxxed deported to them, most people, including here, would have accepted and even encouraged it:

 

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This isn't an issue about how authorities should react to pandemics, it's about mass psychology and how ordinary people can be led to support and do nefarious things.

 

If anything, those who supported this should reflect on their interpretative framework and beliefs, and analyse the critical failings which allowed them to hold such harmful and shameful positions.

 

I'm with you all the way on this - right up until the moment a virus emerges with a 30% case fatality rate and the transmissibility of influenza....

 

... At that point, one could reasonably argue that those refusing to vaccinate and continuing to transmit the virus might bear some degree of criminal or civil responsibility -or, at the very least, should be required to self-isolate.

 

 

It's a deeply complex debate, because it forces us to confront the uncomfortable tension between individual autonomy and collective survival. In such a scenario, the usual moral frameworks erode, and the discussion shifts from what is ethically ideal to what is existentially necessary...

 

 

Those who bear the burden of decision-making power often face choices that many of us could scarcely imagine making ourselves. While it may be somewhat hyperbolic to invoke Churchill’s decision to allow Coventry to be bombed - sacrificing thousands to protect the secret that Allied forces had cracked German codes - the weight of such impossible decisions is always subject to intense scrutiny from critics and the lens of history.

 

In the context of COVID-19, it is now being asked: would it have been better to simply do nothing and isolate only the vulnerable, creating a two-tier society? With the clarity of hindsight, perhaps. But at the time, no one truly knew.

 

The uncertainty was profound, and the decisions had to be made with incomplete information, balancing public health, ethics, and survival in real time.

 

20/20 hindsight gives us the luxury to critique decisions fully equipped with all the facts and outcomes, something those making choices in the moment simply didn’t have

 

[rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Regarding 'coercion' - thats highly emotive language and requires clafication - this is part of the issue when debating such topics - emotive language is chosen over factually based prose.

 

The question of whether society was "coerced" into taking mRNA vaccines depends on how one defines coercion, and perspectives vary widely based on cultural, political, and personal viewpoints.

 

Most people were not forcibly vaccinated - no one was physically compelled.

 

In many countries, vaccination remained a choice, and informed consent was required before administration.

 

mRNA vaccines underwent regulatory review and were recommended, not universally mandated.

 

But, there were coercive pressures (in a broader, social or institutional sense):

- Employment mandates: Many workers, especially in healthcare, education, and public services, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs 

- Access restrictions: Some countries implemented vaccine passports, restricting entry to venues, travel, or public spaces without proof of vaccination.

- Social pressure and messaging: Government campaigns, media narratives, and peer influence painted vaccination as not just a health choice but a civic duty, which, while well-intentioned, often bordered on moral pressure.

- Limited options: In some places, mRNA vaccines were the only available option during early rollout phases, leaving no choice for those hesitant about the platform - this is the part I can see as being wrong - people lacked a choice between vaccine types.

 

It's not emotive language, it's the textbook definition. "Take the jab or lose your job" is coercion.

 

 

The emotive language was heard when people screamed at other people for not wearing a mask, or when political leaders and the media said that the unvaccinated were immature, selfish idiots.

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, rumak said:

THOSE  are the intelligent and righteous people that richard likes to include himself in...... the WE  he so proudly claims to represent.   Pathetic,  and no apologies will ever come from that type.     

He still posts venim filled ad hominem attacks .... I can almost visualize his distorted face in the character of Jack Nickolson in A Few Good Men .

The harsh irony is that time has shown that even now many of those who held those

shameful positions will never own up to "the truth".

 

You have way too much of a hard-on for me...   If you’re capable of posting anything resembling an intelligent argument, I’ll gladly match it with an equally intellectual response.

 

Notice how my responses to Rattlesnake remain free of venom? That’s because he contributes well-researched, thought-provoking discourse - something you evidently can’t manage.

 

I have no patience for fools, apologies if that forces you to resort to imagining me as some caricature in a Hollywood flick as the only way your fragile ego can cope with being outclassed.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

It's not emotive language, it's the textbook definition. "Take the jab or lose your job" is coercion.

 

 

The emotive language was heard when people screamed at other people for not wearing a mask, or when political leaders and the media said that the unvaccinated were immature, selfish idiots.

 

 

You know what? I’m actually leaning more towards your view on the ‘coercion’ angle.

 

While it may not have been coercion in a strictly legal sense, I’ll concede that, given the psychological and social climate at the time, describing it as coercion is a fair and accurate characterisation.

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

I'm with you all the way on this - right up until the moment a virus emerges with a 30% case fatality rate and the transmissibility of influenza....

 

... At that point, one could reasonably argue that those refusing to vaccinate and continuing to transmit the virus might bear some degree of criminal or civil responsibility -or, at the very least, should be required to self-isolate.

 

 

It's a deeply complex debate, because it forces us to confront the uncomfortable tension between individual autonomy and collective survival. In such a scenario, the usual moral frameworks erode, and the discussion shifts from what is ethically ideal to what is existentially necessary...

 

 

Those who bear the burden of decision-making power often face choices that many of us could scarcely imagine making ourselves. While it may be somewhat hyperbolic to invoke Churchill’s decision to allow Coventry to be bombed - sacrificing thousands to protect the secret that Allied forces had cracked German codes - the weight of such impossible decisions is always subject to intense scrutiny from critics and the lens of history.

 

In the context of COVID-19, it is now being asked: would it have been better to simply do nothing and isolate only the vulnerable, creating a two-tier society? With the clarity of hindsight, perhaps. But at the time, no one truly knew.

 

The uncertainty was profound, and the decisions had to be made with incomplete information, balancing public health, ethics, and survival in real time.

 

20/20 hindsight gives us the luxury to critique decisions fully equipped with all the facts and outcomes, something those making choices in the moment simply didn’t have

 

 

This would be a valid take if the initial principle edicted – that the vaccine stops transmisson and has no problematic side effects – had been true. But it isn't the case, as Dr. Redfield himself readily admits (kudos to him for having the humility and intellectual integrity to do that, as these are traits so many people cruelly lack, as is still demonstrated on this forum).

 

And it's not as if the world was discovering these issues now, they have been known for years, albeit confined to the limits of "conspiracy theory".

 

That's the thing, this information was actually known in 2021.

 

When you have the ex-CDC Director, who pushed this vaccine on people in the beginning, now saying what Robert Malone, Sherri Tenpenny or Peter McCullough were saying in 2021, it raises deep, fundamental questions: if these "crazy, dangerous conspiracy theorists and misinformation peddlers" turn out to have been at least partially right, what does it say? About about the political and media apparatus, the power of the pharmaceutical industry over them, the numerous influence peddling schemes which prevent the truth from coming out at all costs, regardless of the consequences (as we are seeing now, with public trust in the authorities being at an all-time low)?

 

And how did we get to the point where people so blindly trust, follow and obey the authorities and media to the point that no amount of rational argumentation or factual demonstrations can have them consider at any point that the "conspiracy theorists" just might be right?

 

Very important questions which can't remain unaddressed.

[rattlesnake]

25 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

THOSE  are the intelligent and righteous people that richard likes to include himself in...... the WE  he so proudly claims to represent.   Pathetic,  and no apologies will ever come from that type.     

He still posts venom filled ad hominem attacks .... I can almost visualize his distorted face in the character of Jack Nickolson in A Few Good Men .

The harsh irony is that time has shown that even now many of those who held those

shameful positions will never own up to "the truth".

 

I personally believe that good, honest people own up to their mistakes – I try to do it myself where possible, and overcome the barriers of ego, confirmation bias, etc.

 

I'm curious to see who, among those who initially condoned what happened in 2021-2022, is willing to demonstrate what I consider to be highly valuable traits: humility and honesty.

[rattlesnake]

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You know what? I’m actually leaning more towards your view on the ‘coercion’ angle.

 

While it may not have been coercion in a strictly legal sense, I’ll concede that, given the psychological and social climate at the time, describing it as coercion is a fair and accurate characterisation.

 

 

 

 

Yeah and beyond the theoretical debates, it had pervasive repercussions in the real world, I mean I remember this guy I knew in Thailand who didn't want to take the jab and was basically faced with the choice to either do it or lose his job. A long term expat with a wife and kids here, what was he supposed to do? He reluctantly went and did it. That's just wrong.

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This would be a valid take if the initial principle edicted – that the vaccine stops transmisson and has no problematic side effects – had been true.

 

That would be a fair critique if public health messaging had claimed perfection from the start - Did it ??? (I don' think it did)...  The initial guidance reflected the best available evidence at the time, under immense pressure I might add.

 

Early data showed vaccines reduced transmission and severe illness, not that they eliminated risk entirely.

 

As for side effects, no medical intervention is risk-free, but serious adverse events were and remain statistically rare.

 

Science evolves - its strength lies in self-correction, not omniscience. Expecting flawless foresight in a crisis isn't reasonable; what matters is whether decisions were made responsibly with what was known at the time - again, back to the burden of decision making power.

 

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But it isn't the case, as Dr. Redfield himself readily admits (kudos to him for having the humility and intellectual integrity to do that, as these are traits so many people cruelly lack, as is still demonstrated on this forum).

 

We need to ensure we distinguish his [Dr. Redfield's] take on mRNA vaccines vs the other Covid-19 vaccines and vaccines in general here.

 

... continuing on... Dr. Redfield’s acknowledgment reflects an important aspect of science: its willingness to evolve and adapt as more data emerges. That’s not a flaw in the process - it’s a feature. Early conclusions weren’t lies; they were provisional judgments based on limited information during a rapidly unfolding crisis.

 

I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact.

 

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And it's not as if the world was discovering these issues now, they have been known for years, albeit confined to the limits of "conspiracy theory".

 

That's the thing, this information was actually known in 2021.

 

When you have the ex-CDC Director, who pushed this vaccine on people in the beginning, now saying what Robert Malone, Sherri Tenpenny or Peter McCullough were saying in 2021, it raises deep, fundamental questions: if these "crazy, dangerous conspiracy theorists and misinformation peddlers" turn out to have been at least partially right, what does it say?

 

 

Unless it's an outright ridiculous conspiracy theory, the most persistent ones tend to cling to a shred of plausibility or truth - that’s what gives them traction. It’s true that some individuals have adverse reactions to vaccines; that’s always been understood. But those cases, while real, don’t outweigh the broader imperative of protecting public health. The risk-benefit balance overwhelmingly favours vaccination, especially during a global crisis.

 

Also, scepticism toward Big Pharma is not only understandable - I think it’s healthy.

The pharmaceutical industry has a long and well-documented history of lobbying, profit-driven motives, and, at times, ethically questionable behaviour. And yes, the entanglement between corporate interests, media narratives, and political agendas does erode public trust. But it’s important to separate distrust in the system from distrust in science itself....  The COVID-19 vaccines were developed by scientists across the globe - not just by profit-driven executives - and their efficacy was tested, scrutinised, and independently reviewed by a wide array of regulatory bodies.

 

Public health should never be blindly entrusted to corporations, but neither should it be derailed by cynicism that disregards evidence simply because of its origin. Holding Big Pharma accountable and valuing life-saving science are not mutually exclusive.

 

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And how did we get to the point where people so blindly trust, follow and obey the authorities and media to the point that no amount of rational argumentation or factual demonstrations can have them consider at any point that the "conspiracy theorists" just might be right?

 

We got here because, in the chaos of a global crisis, people looked to institutions for stability - not out of blind obedience, but out of necessity. That doesn’t mean scepticism isn’t warranted, especially when power and profit are involved. But not every act of trust is ignorance, and not every alternative view is truth. 

 

20 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Very important questions which can't remain unaddressed.

 

The challenge is to question critically without throwing out evidence in favour of contrarianism for its own sake.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Yeah and beyond the theoretical debates, it had pervasive repercussions in the real world, I mean I remember this guy I knew in Thailand who didn't want to take the jab and was basically faced with the choice to either do it or lose his job. A long term expat with a wife and kids here, what was he supposed to do? He reluctantly went and did it. That's just wrong.

 

I was in exactly the same situation...   though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines.

 

[rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I was in exactly the same situation...   though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines.

 

 

Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to?

[rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That would be a fair critique if public health messaging had claimed perfection from the start - Did it ??? (I don' think it did)...  The initial guidance reflected the best available evidence at the time, under immense pressure I might add.

 

Biden, Rachel Walensky, Fauci, Rachel Maddow and many more all pushed the message that "the virus stops at every vaccinated person" and it had a great impact on collective perception from the get-go.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Early conclusions weren’t lies; they were provisional judgments based on limited information during a rapidly unfolding crisis.

 

But they were used as basis for the previously discussed coercion. And they were challenged by several doctors, who were smeared and lost a large part of their income and status. A unilateral stance was adopted and pushed aggressively, with no room for nuance or contradiction – this would already be ethically questionable if the stance has turned out to be the right one, but that isn't even the case.

 

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Unless it's an outright ridiculous conspiracy theory, the most persistent ones tend to cling to a shred of plausibility or truth - that’s what gives them traction. It’s true that some individuals have adverse reactions to vaccines; that’s always been understood. But those cases, while real, don’t outweigh the broader imperative of protecting public health. The risk-benefit balance overwhelmingly favours vaccination, especially during a global crisis.

 

It's more than the odd adverse event here and there. It's significant, and that is why Dr. Redfield now refuses to administer the mRNA shot. His status gives an additional aura of credibility to concerns which have been voiced by numerous health professionals for four years.

 

It's time for the truth to come out, I hope RFK will be the catalysing agent for this.

 

[kwonitoy]

On 6/6/2025 at 9:11 PM, impulse said:

 

No thanks.  But here's a good start.  Look up the VAERS history of my 2nd Pfizer:

 

 

I dare you.  Google EN6204.

 

 

I took the dare. I am apparently vaccine injured also,

Bottom line "Vaccination Site Pain"

Can I sue?

 

 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I was in exactly the same situation...   though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines.

 

 

Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to?

 

At the time, I understood the situation for what it was. Initially, I was sceptical - I genuinely thought the global response to Covid-19 might be an overreaction. But as I delved deeper, I came to appreciate that authorities were working from a framework shaped by previous outbreaks like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.

The data and modelling from those events made it clear that early, decisive action – including isolation, quarantine, and travel restrictions – was the only responsible route, given what was then unknown.

 

I’ve always believed in vaccination. It’s one of the cornerstones of modern public health, and I’m convinced it's a major reason most of us are even alive today. Epidemiological models consistently estimate that, without vaccines, the global population would be 3 to 4 billion fewer – a staggering difference, but one supported by historical case fatality rates and mortality statistics from vaccine-preventable diseases.

 

So when it came to the pandemic, I placed my trust in the science. Vaccines were never going to be perfect – no vaccine ever is. But the principle is sound. And while early data showed that the Covid-19 vaccines might not have the high efficacy rates we’d hoped for – perhaps not even matching the typical 40-60% efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines – they still represented a significant reduction in risk, both for individuals and for the wider population.

 

Where politics became relevant for me was not in the decision to get vaccinated myself – that was straightforward. It was in the expectation that others would do the same, especially in shared environments like travel or work. I found reassurance in knowing that those around me posed a reduced risk – to me, my family, my friends – because they, too, had been vaccinated. That mattered.

 

 

Now, do I believe in freedom of choice? Absolutely. But I also believe that social media played a damaging role during the pandemic. Misinformation, often in the form of memes and unverified anecdotes, spread faster than any virus – and disproportionately influenced those without the tools or background to properly assess scientific claims.

 

Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, society does need to make certain decisions for people. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and speed limits.

 

So was it ethical to be put in a position where refusal would have been difficult? That depends on perspective.

I didn’t feel coerced – I felt informed. But I do recognise that some felt backed into a corner, and I sympathise with that discomfort. Ultimately, I believe the ethical balance lies in doing what protects the most people, while striving to communicate truth with honesty, humility, and clarity – something that was, unfortunately, often lacking during the heat of it all.

 

The same principle applied to my son's school. We were required to provide a full vaccination record as part of the enrolment process. Had there been gaps, I’ve no doubt the school would have had the right – and, arguably, the responsibility – to request that certain vaccines be administered before accepting him. That’s not about control; it’s about collective responsibility and protecting those who can’t protect themselves.

 

So… do I like mandates like that? Not particularly. Do I think they're necessary? Yes, in many cases I do.

 

As for whether it's ethical – that’s more complex. With the benefit of hindsight, the ethics become somewhat grey. But in the moment, with the information and urgency we were facing, I genuinely believed – and still largely believe – that requiring vaccination for international travel and for working in close-contact environments was an ethical stance. It was a proportionate response to a global crisis, aimed at minimising harm and keeping society functioning.

 

[richard_smith237]

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Biden, Rachel Walensky, Fauci, Rachel Maddow and many more all pushed the message that "the virus stops at every vaccinated person" and it had a great impact on collective perception from the get-go.

 

 

 

The political messaging aimed to be clear, motivational, and unifying, but in doing so it often simplified complex realities.

 

This led to some public confusion and I'd agree political lying when vaccine effectiveness against transmission turned out to be less than hoped and when Covid-19 became endemic rather than eliminated.

 

 

... But ulimtately, the message we received in the UK was that vaccination did not offer sterilising immunity but helped build herd immunity and help protect those who couldn't be vaccinated or didn't develop strong immunity themselves.

 

 

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But they were used as basis for the previously discussed coercion. And they were challenged by several doctors, who were smeared and lost a large part of their income and status. A unilateral stance was adopted and pushed aggressively, with no room for nuance or contradiction – this would already be ethically questionable if the stance has turned out to be the right one, but that isn't even the case.

 

I agree...   The sidelining of some doctors and experts who challenged the mainstream view was deeply troubling, especially when professional reputations and livelihoods were affected.

 

However, it felt very much like a time of war, where a unified stance was deemed necessary to face an existential threat. In such moments, governments often prioritise collective action and social cohesion over individual dissent to protect the greater good. This maybe a poor comparison, however, I'll run with it: Conscription during WWI and WWII limited personal freedom for many, but was widely accepted as necessary for national survival.

 

That doesn’t mean such measures are without ethical challenges or consequences, but history shows that during crises, societies often accept - and sometimes expect - strong, centralised decisions to navigate unprecedented dangers - the issues in 2020 and 2021 were that social media also changed the landscape from an information and misinformation perspective. 

 

Obviously, the key is ensuring that these decisions remained transparent, proportional, and subject to review once the emergency passes...   

 

I haven't taken the Covid-19 vaccine since, my parents do because they are in a high risk group, they take the seasonal influenza vaccine too.

 

 

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It's more than the odd adverse event here and there. It's significant, and that is why Dr. Redfield now refuses to administer the mRNA shot. His status gives an additional aura of credibility to concerns which have been voiced by numerous health professionals for four years.

 

Ongoing investigation and independent, peer-reviewed studies are essential - not just during a crisis, but always. Science thrives on transparency, scrutiny, and the willingness to revise conclusions as new evidence emerges. This process builds trust and helps ensure policies are based on the most reliable, unbiased information possible. Without that, public confidence and effective decision-making suffer - that can be deadly if another more serious viral thread evolves (or is leaked).

 

 

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It's time for the truth to come out, I hope RFK will be the catalysing agent for this.

 

 

[rattlesnake]

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

At the time, I understood the situation for what it was. Initially, I was sceptical - I genuinely thought the global response to Covid-19 might be an overreaction. But as I delved deeper, I came to appreciate that authorities were working from a framework shaped by previous outbreaks like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.

The data and modelling from those events made it clear that early, decisive action – including isolation, quarantine, and travel restrictions – was the only responsible route, given what was then unknown.

 

I’ve always believed in vaccination. It’s one of the cornerstones of modern public health, and I’m convinced it's a major reason most of us are even alive today. Epidemiological models consistently estimate that, without vaccines, the global population would be 3 to 4 billion fewer – a staggering difference, but one supported by historical case fatality rates and mortality statistics from vaccine-preventable diseases.

 

So when it came to the pandemic, I placed my trust in the science. Vaccines were never going to be perfect – no vaccine ever is. But the principle is sound. And while early data showed that the Covid-19 vaccines might not have the high efficacy rates we’d hoped for – perhaps not even matching the typical 40-60% efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines – they still represented a significant reduction in risk, both for individuals and for the wider population.

 

A lot of people took the vaccine because they believed it would stop them from catching Covid, just as all other vaccines had beforehand. My dad was one of them and he even mentioned the polio vaccine – as most boomers did – to justify his stance. After his third shot (which made him unwell for several months), he actually told me I was right, as what happened was not what he had been sold on. I think this is a valid piece of anecdotal evidence as my dad is not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The same principle applied to my son's school. We were required to provide a full vaccination record as part of the enrolment process. Had there been gaps, I’ve no doubt the school would have had the right – and, arguably, the responsibility – to request that certain vaccines be administered before accepting him. That’s not about control; it’s about collective responsibility and protecting those who can’t protect themselves.

 

 

So your son is vaccinated against Covid? I'm just curious to know where various people stand on this – for example, I know people who took the shot themselves but drew the line at their kids.

 

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ultimately, I believe the ethical balance lies in doing what protects the most people, while striving to communicate truth with honesty, humility, and clarity – something that was, unfortunately, often lacking during the heat of it all.

 

Which brings us back to the initial issue: the "misinformation peddlers", often qualified doctors, who spoke out (usually in reasonable terms) against these failures should not have been silenced, threatened and smeared. And those who believed "factchecker.org" and the like shoud realise that they were manipulated.

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, kwonitoy said:

I took the dare. I am apparently vaccine injured also,

Bottom line "Vaccination Site Pain"

Can I sue?

 

Indeed, many people who received the Covid-19 vaccine experienced what became known as "Covid arm" which is an innate immune response, signalling that the body is recognising the vaccine and mounting a defence.

 

Alongside this, common side effects such as fever, chills, fatigue, and muscle aches are also manifestations of the innate immune system activating.

 

These symptoms are generally signs that the vaccine is doing its job - stimulating the immune system to prepare the body to fight the actual virus if encountered.

 

The reaction / response is typical with many vaccines (of all types) and an indication of immune activation rather than cause for alarm - though for some...    they thought it meant there was something wrong with the vaccine... 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact.

 

The mRNA issue is separate from other vaccinations, though the Covid fiasco lead lots of people to question – and ultimately lose faith in – vaccination as a whole (I am one of them).

 

Dr. Palevsky warned in 2021 that this episode would probably deal a fatal blow to the vaccination industry.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, rattlesnake said:

A lot of people took the vaccine because they believed it would stop them from catching Covid, just as all other vaccines had beforehand.

 

That really depends on how well-informed people were. I was certainly aware from the outset that no vaccine offers 100% protection, and Covid vaccines were no exception - just like the seasonal influenza vaccine, which varies in efficacy year to year and primarily reduces the severity of illness rather than guaranteeing full immunity.

 

If people believed the Covid vaccine would completely prevent infection, that may reflect a misunderstanding - either through assumptions, poor communication, or in some cases, a failure by health professionals or public messaging to explain things clearly.

 

In the midst of a global crisis, with a constant stream of evolving information, it's not surprising that many people made assumptions. The sheer volume of noise - media headlines, political soundbites, social media posts - often overwhelmed the more nuanced messages about what the vaccine could and couldn’t do.

 

It was never a magic shield, but rather a tool to reduce serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, and to help slow transmission - especially in the early stages.

 

 

Just now, rattlesnake said:

My dad was one of them and he even mentioned the polio vaccine – as most boomers did – to justify his stance. After his third shot (which made him unwell for several months), he actually told me I was right, as what happened was not what he had been sold on. I think this is a valid piece of anecdotal evidence as my dad is not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I'm sorry to hear that... Meanwhile my folks have taken yearly Covid-19 vaccines and influenza vaccines without issue, and more importantly, without coming down with serious symptoms of Covid or Influenza.

 

Just now, rattlesnake said:

So your son is vaccinated against Covid? I'm just curious to know where various people stand on this – for example, I know people who took the shot themselves but drew the line at their kids.

 

Yes, my son received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine (a viral vector platform). However, we’ve not had further Covid vaccinations since, as I believe the severity and risk profile of the virus has shifted significantly since the early waves.

 

As we approach winter, more recently we have instead prioritised the seasonal influenza vaccine. In our case, this presents a more immediate and practical concern. In past years, we have picked up the flu, which has disrupted several precious days of our break. Given the likelihood of exposure to seasonal flu the flu jab feels like the more appropriate safeguard for our circumstances.

 

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Which brings us back to the initial issue: the "misinformation peddlers", often qualified doctors, who spoke out (usually in reasonable terms) against these failures should not have been silenced, threatened and smeared. And those who believed "factcheckers.org" and the like shoud realise that they were manipulated.

 

Possibly... but that circles back to the necessity of a unified stance in the face of what was perceived as an existential threat.

 

In times of crisis, especially when the science is still emerging, it’s not uncommon for governments and institutions to centralise decision-making and messaging in the name of public safety.

 

It's often said that “a committee of one is the only way to make a decision during war” -  and while that kind of top-down approach definitely seems authoritarian, it's perhaps considered necessary to prevent chaos or paralysis.

 

Whether it was the right move in hindsight is still up for debate, but at the time, even with hindsight I think its valid argument to suggest that unity and clarity were essential tools in managing uncertainty.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact.

 

The mRNA issue is separate from other vaccinations, though the Covid fiasco lead lots of people to question – and ultimately lose faith in – vaccination as a whole (I am one of them).

 

Dr. Palevsky warned in 2021 that this episode would probably deal a fatal blow to the vaccination industry.

 

Indeed...   and we have the recent measles outbreak in the USA (discussed in other threads)....

 

 

[rattlesnake]

33 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm sorry to hear that...

 

Thanks, he seems to have made a full recovery, thankfully.