CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back
Discussion
Landcrab_Six said:
Gadgetmac said:
What a load of tosh. A lot of vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn’t. Those with heart conditions that are stable to name but one group.
Not sure about that. I have CHD but I'm not on the shielding list.Landcrab_Six said:
Gadgetmac said:
There’s vulnerable and there’s those shielding. I’m classed as vulnerable but not shielding. I too have CHD. Out of interest whats your ejection fraction?
Not too bad these days - immediately after my MI, it was down to 40%, it's at 50% now. 2 stents, one in the LAD. Horrible experience - if the paramedic had been a few minutes further away, I wouldn't be here now.I’m at 23% and have an ICD implanted. I received 3 texts back in March from the NHS that I was in a “vulnerable group”. Was told by my cardiologist back in March to move heaven and earth to keep away from covid as he would expect the worst possible outcome if I caught it. So not in the shielding set as its heart related but will likely perish if I get it bad and am admitted to hospital. Otherwise, covid aside, I can expect to live for 10 to 15 years or so more if I keep myself healthy overall, hence my comment that “a lot of vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn’t”.
Landcrab_Six said:
Gadgetmac said:
Thats good to hear.
I’m at 23% and have an ICD implanted. I received 3 texts back in March from the NHS that I was in a “vulnerable group”. Was told by my cardiologist back in March to move heaven and earth to keep away from covid as he would expect the worst possible outcome if I caught it. So not in the shielding set as its heart related but will likely perish if I get it bad and am admitted to hospital. Otherwise, covid aside, I can expect to live for 10 to 15 years or so more if I keep myself healthy overall, hence my comment that “a lot of vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn’t”.
Makes mine look mild! - but... surely the 'worst possible outcome' only happens *if* you're one of the very small percentage of people who actually get Covid, rather than getting a +ve SARS-CoV-2 test and a little sniffle?I’m at 23% and have an ICD implanted. I received 3 texts back in March from the NHS that I was in a “vulnerable group”. Was told by my cardiologist back in March to move heaven and earth to keep away from covid as he would expect the worst possible outcome if I caught it. So not in the shielding set as its heart related but will likely perish if I get it bad and am admitted to hospital. Otherwise, covid aside, I can expect to live for 10 to 15 years or so more if I keep myself healthy overall, hence my comment that “a lot of vulnerable people will die who otherwise wouldn’t”.
And if your cardiologist thinks it could be so bad for you, surely even the flu poses a serious risk? (I'm on the flu vaccine list, but turn it down after being laid low for a week post vaccine a few years ago)
Not playing it down, but what really is the risk? Is it any higher than the risk of your heart condition getting you anyway? - this is my thought... I cheated death once, I'm not going to let a bloody virus stop me from enjoying life, as the heart issues could kill me tomorrow.
And I agree, the heart issue could get me tomorrow but all things being equal it won't. CV19 reduces those odds so I and many others are in this position.
Landcrab_Six said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yep, I get the flu jab every year...first in the queue when the later arrives. Yes, I'm only at risk if I catch it but this is a very different beast from the flu. You don't get thousands on ventilators with the flu. If I need ventilation the stress on my already weakened cardio vascular system will be immense and almost certainly too much for me. Have you seen those people being ventilated? That's a life threatening situation for even the fittest of people let alone those in my situation.
And I agree, the heart issue could get me tomorrow but all things being equal it won't. CV19 reduces those odds so I and many others are in this position.
The only thing I'd challenge here is what are the odds of you actually getting ill enough to need hospitalisation or ventilation?And I agree, the heart issue could get me tomorrow but all things being equal it won't. CV19 reduces those odds so I and many others are in this position.
There is a theory that daily blood thinners such as aspirin will prevent some of the worst impacts of a bad covid infection.
I think you have to separate out the chances of needing ventilation from the chances of survival if you do get ventilated.
But it's all about personal perception. Mine is I want to live, I don't want to sit at home wasting the years I do have left (I'm mid 40s, so my age related risk is minimal)
“A few who are vulnerable would die, as they would anyway.”
Which, as I’ve proved, is complete garbage.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Gary C said:
Why the disparaging remark ?
What do think it will do then clever clogs ?
Same as face masks, which some people also claimed would give people the confidence to return to normal. It will perpetuate the delusion and embolden them to make more stupid decisions. What do think it will do then clever clogs ?
No wonder they're trying to get social media to close down some of the tripe that's being posted about this issue.
gumshoe said:
Gary C said:
What I can't get is why someone would be blasé about the virus but terrified of the vaccine ?
Because of the statistics. There is a bigger statistical chance of being hurt by the vaccine than by the virus. Edited by Gary C on Saturday 21st November 13:45
The statistics are indisputable.
Biker 1 said:
ChevronB19 said:
So laughable were it not so tragic. ‘No skin off your nose’ is also just a tad selfish, given that for vaccines to be truly effective, a high proportion of a population (dependent on vaccine) need to take it.
Oh god, not the 'selfish' card. Looks like I'll be guilty as charged....monkfish1 said:
If my odds of dying from covid were even remotely serious, sure id take it. But they are not. 1 in 140,000. Vaccine needs to be better than that. When that can be proven, i'll take it. Until then. No.
I think your stat is a little suspect. If 50,000 have died and you say the ratio is 1:140,000 then gives the UK a population of 7 billion. 
JuanCarlosFandango said:
CrutyRammers said:
I don't think you took my meaning.
People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Absolutely spot on.People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Scientists in their field are far more worthy of trust than any unqualified person is. Brain surgeons are far more trustworthy in matters of surgery to the brain than any other oerson is etc etc etc.
This is internet nonsense thats being pedalled.
CrutyRammers said:
Gadgetmac said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
CrutyRammers said:
I don't think you took my meaning.
People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Absolutely spot on.People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Scientists in their field are far more worthy of trust than any unqualified person is. Brain surgeons are far more trustworthy in matters of surgery to the brain than any other oerson is etc etc etc.
This is internet nonsense thats being pedalled.
CrutyRammers said:
Gadgetmac said:
CrutyRammers said:
Gadgetmac said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
CrutyRammers said:
I don't think you took my meaning.
People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Absolutely spot on.People who like to consider themselves as rational, clever folks, have taken to clinging to this concept of "the scientists", as if there is some homogenous group. Again it's largely stemmed from the media, who like to use headlines like "scientists say xyz". So you get people who follow "the science" or say things like "I trust the scientists" as if it's a single, settled, factual view which is always right.
People have started to do this in a way which appears quasi-religious. An appeal to authority which they've decided must be true because it's what "the scientists" say; few will of course actually read what those scientists have said, or understand the field, or the methods, or whether there's any differences of opinion and how valid they are. Few consider that, rather than all being tireless seakers of truth who labour for the good of us all, "the scientists" are people just like any others, and just as prone to greed, and office politics, and wanting to show that the other guy is wrong more than worrying about the truth, and screw over the other guy to get ahead, as anyone else is.
I trust the scientific method, when properly applied. Scientists themselves are no more worthy of trust than any other person is.
Scientists in their field are far more worthy of trust than any unqualified person is. Brain surgeons are far more trustworthy in matters of surgery to the brain than any other oerson is etc etc etc.
This is internet nonsense thats being pedalled.
Jasandjules said:
Gadgetmac said:
I think maybe you haven’t been clear then. From what I can see you’ve insinuated that the “grubby concerns of money and power” have an influence on the science. I’ve simply asked you to back that up.
This must be rhetorical surely? I mean, surely? 
CrutyRammers said:
Gadgetmac said:
I think maybe you haven’t been clear then. From what I can see you’ve insinuated that the “grubby concerns of money and power” have an influence on the science. I’ve simply asked you to back that up.
On the scientists. Because they're people. You seem to be angling to have an argument around there being some grand conspiracy. That's not what I'm saying. (Though if you want that, a read of the "climategate" emails from a few years back has plenty of that).
There's plenty of petty favour seeking to be done in science just as in any industry. The almost fuedal system of deciding who gets listed as an author and who gets the prized positions. People are listed because of their seniority, and as favours, without ever having had anything to do with the work. Fighting for promotions; screwing people over for self advancement; people getting pushed out for having different views to the boss; it all happens, same as in business. And amongst scientists there are the self promotors, the weaselly backstabbers, just as anywhere else. As well as the good ones, of course.
I trust the scientific method absolutely. I do not automatically trust scientists. I particularly do not take at face value anything which starts "scientists say'. And I very much do not trust scientists who are involved with politics
Now you’re in my territory...learn about climategate yourself
JuanCarlosFandango said:
grumbledoak said:
Well, exactly. There couldn't possibly be a profit motive. How very dare you!
Obviously the next step from saying a pharmaceutical company wants to make profits is to say space lizards are injecting us with mind control chips. JuanCarlosFandango said:
Gadgetmac said:
You already do say the equivalent of that...”it’s just a cold” if I recall correctly.
Coronaviruses cause colds, which can, rarely lead to more serious complications especially in vulnerable. Covid 19 is one coronavirus. More severe than some but a cold none the less.Nothing to do with lizards.
You also said that the only people that will die will be those that would have anyway or some such junk.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff