Don't Get People Not Getting Vaccinated

SmallTown

Well-known member
Well maybe, but then again, if we there had been social media then, maybe there could’ve been more awareness of thalidomide it’s affects on killing and disfiguring babies.

It all really depends on how you look at it

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a little bit of caution with medication or vaccines that we don’t fully understand and ones that have been developed quickly.

It’s one people saying we’re more scientifically advanced right now compared to the past , so they can make vaccines quickly, but in 30 years, some practices now will seem archaic too. So there’s always room for massive errors unless you assume now is as good as it’s ever going to be.

I’m not an anti-vaccine person by the way, I just think for all those reasons, it’s healthy that there’s still some scepticism too.
I would have agreed with you a year ago. Now, with the overwhelming evidence about safety and efficacy, I don't.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Well maybe, but then again, if we there had been social media then, maybe there could’ve been more awareness of thalidomide it’s affects on killing and disfiguring babies.

It all really depends on how you look at it

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a little bit of caution with medication or vaccines that we don’t fully understand and ones that have been developed quickly.

It’s one people saying we’re more scientifically advanced right now compared to the past , so they can make vaccines quickly, but in 30 years, some practices now will seem archaic too. So there’s always room for massive errors unless you assume now is as good as it’s ever going to be.

The thing is, for every one drug that's mentioned as bad (from the 50's), there's 100 that are good, and a 1000 since that have been even better. The "bad" 1 might injure or even kill 100 (yet still probably saves 10x that), the 100 good might save or help 1 million (with little side effects), the extra thousand might save 100 million (with barely any side effects). All of the "bad" ones, mean we have become more regulated and learnt more from previous mistakes, so previous failings, realisations and corrections, are probably more a reason to trust medical science now. It's the same for technology, cars, computers, phones etc, things start off ok, then get good, then great, and then ridiculous.

They need to look at it relatively and compare it to the alternative. There is no alternative where they choose not to get vaccinated, then go to the pub every Friday and Saturday and don't get exposed to covid. It's a vaccine reducing risk by 95% for most adults, or they face a risk 20x more by not getting vaccinated.

Those making, regulating, approving and carrying out the vaccine injections understand more than those saying "we don't understand them", in reality, those not having them, are the only ones that don't understand them, and certainly don't know how to compare relative risks of vaccination and covid, never mind factoring in for reciprocal and economical benefits from having this under control faster.

We might have been at 0.1% of possible knowledge in the 1900's, then 1% in 1950, now we might be at 50% and in 30 years that may be 90%.
Comparative risk in 1900 might have been 50%, then in 1950 20%, now 1% and in 2050 0.1%.
Either way, comparing now, to limited issues 70 years ago, and using that as a reason to not do something now doesn't make any sense, never mind factoring in now that things are more regulated and better known than at any point in history.
The probability of errors is not massive, it's tiny, and even less compared to what it's saving, and the probability of errors, will only decrease.

There is no time to wait 20 years to realise the short, mid, and long term effects of vaccination are safer, as by then 100 million could have died, and we already know covid kills 1% without treatment/ vaccines, and that's without healthcare overwhelmed.

You don't not put on a parachute, because there's a better model parachute coming out in 20 years, or you don't wait 10 years to see if that first one would have worked when every skydiver is telling you to just use it.
 
Last edited:

Andy_W

Well-known member
It was in the script I read, well documented about reducing risk and not 100% cure. The estimated efficiency of the vaccines were well published at the time they were rolled out.

Exactly this.

It's been extremely accurate, especially for the original strain, and even better at saving lives for the more recent strains, especially when combined with other drugs and treatments.

Anything over 50% is a "pass" for a vaccine, and thankfully we've got A****, these were touted as 90-98% for AZ-Pfizer, from the very early days.
 

HiredGun123

Well-known member
I would have agreed with you a year ago. Now, with the overwhelming evidence about safety and efficacy, I don't.

Fair enough

I’m not an anti-Vaccine advocate anyway. I just don’t think theres a problem with people questioning things

More so, I find it completely pathetic if people would break friendships over a difference of opinion, like I’ve read on here. If anyone does that, the friendship was probably not worth having anyway, if it could be called friendship.
 

The_Lizards_Jumpers

Well-known member
Fair enough

I’m not an anti-Vaccine advocate anyway. I just don’t think theres a problem with people questioning things

More so, I find it completely pathetic if people would break friendships over a difference of opinion, like I’ve read on here. If anyone does that, the friendship was probably not worth having anyway, if it could be called friendship.

Would you break off a friendship if your friend was racist or homophobic ?
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
I just don’t think theres a problem with people questioning things

More so, I find it completely pathetic if people would break friendships over a difference of opinion, like I’ve read on here. If anyone does that, the friendship was probably not worth having anyway, if it could be called friendship.

I don't think the issue is people questioning things, which they have a fair or even good understanding of, or where things may be open to debate, i.e who is better Messi or Ronaldo?

The issue is people questioning things that they have zero understanding of, even at an extremely basic level. Would they question that the pilot is taking the correct flight plan, if they can't even see out of the window? Would they question a doctor who has seen all the scans and x-rays, and instead just trust the opinion of the dog, who can't talk?

People have a right to an opinion, of course, they do, but when their opinion is going against massively overwhelming evidence, and the opinion of experts then I think it's fair enough to call them out on it. So my opinion that "they're being a moron" would be more valid than their opinion that the risk of long term vaccine effects are more of a concern than covid would be.

For what it's worth I wouldn't mind being called a moron if I was going against expert opinion on the above, and certainly wouldn't lose a mate if one of my good friends called me that. But I would rarely do it, and could certainly understand them saying it.

I would however re-evaluate a friendship based on somebody not getting it, and posing more risk to others, as I think that's worse, I would expect better morals from my friends and family, and thankfully they think similar to me in that respect. I suppose this depends on what they're doing and where though, each case is different.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Most people who died in January, Feb and March weren't double Jabbed because the roll out had just started. If you look at the figures since all over 40's were after the 2 week fully jabbed phase, about 85% of all covid deaths were double jabbed.
Any links to the figures that you quoted?
 

Stellify

New member
I don't think the issue is people questioning things, which they have a fair or even good understanding of, or where things may be open to debate, i.e who is better Messi or Ronaldo?

The issue is people questioning things that they have zero understanding of, even at an extremely basic level. Would they question that the pilot is taking the correct flight plan, if they can't even see out of the window? Would they question a doctor who has seen all the scans and x-rays, and instead just trust the opinion of the dog, who can't talk?

People have a right to an opinion, of course, they do, but when their opinion is going against massively overwhelming evidence, and the opinion of experts then I think it's fair enough to call them out on it. So my opinion that "they're being a moron" would be more valid than their opinion that the risk of long term vaccine effects are more of a concern than covid would be.

For what it's worth I wouldn't mind being called a moron if I was going against expert opinion on the above, and certainly wouldn't lose a mate if one of my good friends called me that. But I would rarely do it, and could certainly understand them saying it.

I would however re-evaluate a friendship based on somebody not getting it, and posing more risk to others, as I think that's worse, I would expect better morals from my friends and family, and thankfully they think similar to me in that respect. I suppose this depends on what they're doing and where though, each case is different.
I have some friends who take drugs and do other " bad things ", the drug trade, prositution, smuggling and all else it brings hinders millions of lives ... I don't agree with them doing what they do but they're still mates. I find it mental that you wouldn't be friends with someone based on whether they have had a vaccination or not. Mental.
 

Stellify

New member
Also shows the vaccination isn't showing any signs of preventing infection, if anything the vaccinated have a higher case rate, and if their symptoms are less severe, more likely to keep going out and mixing. The jab is very good at preventing death and serious illness. It isn't very good at anything else. It is a health intervention that protects you. That's it. Don't take the moral high ground at protecting others etc because real world results do not back that stance up.
 

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants

Well-known member
Also shows the vaccination isn't showing any signs of preventing infection, if anything the vaccinated have a higher case rate, and if their symptoms are less severe, more likely to keep going out and mixing. The jab is very good at preventing death and serious illness. It isn't very good at anything else. It is a health intervention that protects you. That's it. Don't take the moral high ground at protecting others etc because real world results do not back that stance up.
Well it does reduce transmission by clearing viral load quicker. So infective period us shorter.
 

bear66

Well-known member

Andy_W

Well-known member
Most people who died in January, Feb and March weren't double Jabbed because the roll out had just started. If you look at the figures since all over 40's were after the 2 week fully jabbed phase, about 85% of all covid deaths were double jabbed.

You're misunderstanding what those numbers mean (not sure about the source of them either)?

It's a bit hard to explain, but some of the mathematicians on Twitter have done a good job, I'll try and find the old threads (this was debunked months ago).

Basically, that massive amount of deaths from 20k-50k cases per day, in Dec-March, look how that compares to the limited numbers of deaths from 50k cases in Jul-Sep? It's about 90% less than it otherwise would have been. So, that 85% of deaths are probably over 70, who would have had by far and away the most risk pre vax, and still relatively high-risk post vax (compared to other age groups), and of which over 95% of those age groups are double vaccinated (more than other age groups), and pretty much everyone with major health issues is double vaxxed who are still at big risk.

Effectively that 85% you mention, might contain 99% of the risk, but you've got 15% of the deaths coming from unvaccinated when they're <5% of the danger age groups, and <1% of the most at risk.

If 100% were double jabbed, then the double jabbed deaths would be 100%, but the relative rate would be down by 90% compared to what it was.
If nobody was vaxxed, the unvaxxed would be 100% the deaths, and the deaths would be 10x higher.




1631711200635.png

1631711153146.png
 
Last edited:

Andy_W

Well-known member
Interesting that you want to portray something about the vaccine in a negative way. That table you reference shows that the death rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated is a factor of 3 to 10 lower for vaccinated people across age ranges. As Whitty said yesterday, you should be ashamed of yourself.

View attachment 24522
I wouldn't have bothered with my post above, had I seen your table first, I was looking for that, but couldn't find it, cheers, (y)

That should explain it better than any words can!

One thing it doesn't factor for though is the double vaxxed, especially in older age groups, contain 99% of the people who have other health issues also, so in reality, those numbers still don't paint a true picture. i.e there's next to zero 70's and 80's unvaxxed that had other health issues, yet they're still dying at a rate 3-5x more, than the fully vaxxed really ill people.
 
Last edited:

Andy_W

Well-known member
I have some friends who take drugs and do other " bad things ", the drug trade, prositution, smuggling and all else it brings hinders millions of lives ... I don't agree with them doing what they do but they're still mates. I find it mental that you wouldn't be friends with someone based on whether they have had a vaccination or not. Mental.
I've got loads of mates, no need to hang around people with questionable morals and it's likely they've already been lost along the way anyway, which is why I don't seem to be mates with anyone anti-vax. I've not had to ditch anyone, they already got ditched, or they ditched me, which is fine (y)

I was talking more about the 30, 40, 50, 60's+ etc though, those who should know better and who are not young and nieve. I wasn't really on about teens and 20's, but I also know loads that have done recreational drugs (over a decade ago), most of them at least partially regret it, to a degree. Pretty much all of them would have only considered the increased risk to themselves, as not having been experts in the world drug trade, and maybe if they knew more about that, they may have done things differently. People wisen up, generally, my issue is more with those that don't.
 

Stellify

New member
Interesting that you want to portray something about the vaccine in a negative way. That table you reference shows that the death rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated is a factor of 3 to 10 lower for vaccinated people across age ranges. As Whitty said yesterday, you should be ashamed of yourself.

View attachment 24522
The vaccine is very good at preventing death. The vaccine doesn't appear to prevent or reduce transmission. Ashamed of myself for noticing them two very clear things in the data? No.
 

bear66

Well-known member
The vaccine is very good at preventing death. The vaccine doesn't appear to prevent or reduce transmission. Ashamed of myself for noticing them two very clear things in the data? No.
I responded to your first post which only mentioned deaths. You should be ashamed for giving a misleading impression about deaths of vaccinated people.

As far as transmission, from Table 4, the unvaccinated case rate is 1165 cases per 100,000 people. The double vaccinated case rate is 808 cases per 100,000.
 
Top
X