Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?

[paulguitar]

Driller said:

What has Sahjahd said that is so loony-crazy that he has to be treated as one? Conversely one could call unthinking acceptors of the covid vaccine Vaxer-zealots but that’s just not useful for reasoned debate is it?

It's been said that having a sample size of 9 vaccinated friends and pointing out one got ill, potentially from the vaccine, whilst no personal friends suffered seriously from covid is not a good basis on which to decide whether to get vaccinated.

I'd like to think we all want the best for each other. Choosing to assess the situation using scientific, rather than anecdotal evidence, is a big step in the right direction.

Edited by paulguitar on Saturday 15th May 09:00

Edited by paulguitar on Saturday 15th May 09:00

[Gweeds]

Sahjahd said:

I most certainly do not.

Motoring is not only an insurable risk, but most of us have insurance to indemnify us against those risks; I sincerely hope that includes you.

Christ on a bike.

You do realise that having insurance doesn't mean you won't die in a car, it just means you're insured.

Tell me you understand the difference between insuring a risk and actually avoiding it.

[anonymous-user]

Sahjahd said:

I most certainly do not.

Motoring is not only an insurable risk, but most of us have insurance to indemnify us against those risks; I sincerely hope that includes you.

So your evaluation of personal risk is based upon wether some other poor bugger can be claimed against???

Or is it that if it’s insurable it must be safe?

Either way your rationale doesn’t hold water.

[Uggers]

grumbledoak said:

Driller said:

Thanks for the replies above to my question and fair enough. However, reading the posts above it seems like Sahjahd is being labelled to me (it’s all right I’m sure he can take it :-)) but unnecessarily. A bit like a bloke being called a « Cis-male ».

What has Sahjahd said that is so loony-crazy that he has to be treated as one? Conversely one could call unthinking acceptors of the covid vaccine Vaxer-zealots but that’s just not useful for reasoned debate is it?

The marginalizing (invoking isolation) and the name calling (attempts at shaming) are massive "tells". You would think that, after a year of it, people would recognize them for what they are. Or at least acknowledge that they are being used in place of reasoned debate. Apparently not.

I bowed out of this thread when I questioned the need to vaccinate newborns and the incoming 'reasoning' from vaccine zealots.

As a 41 year old I've had the 1st jab. My reasons are ultimately selfish the same as most as I know it will be a condition of me been able to work and provide for my family.

But risk to my life? It was a choice between nearly zero risk of covid, and zero risk of taking the vaccine. A decision about something so small in the past it wouldn't have been even a question to consider, but here we are.

Do I think my 13 year old son needs to be vaccinated or do I think I need to pay out of my taxes for the size of system in place to constantly vaccinate/boost nearly 70 million people forever more? No I don't. I think a line on the sand needs to be drawn between benefits and cost. Like any other decision was made in the past regarding medical services.

If that makes me an anti-vaxxer then so be it.

[anonymous-user]

V6 Pushfit said:

Sahjahd said:

I most certainly do not.

Motoring is not only an insurable risk, but most of us have insurance to indemnify us against those risks; I sincerely hope that includes you.

So your evaluation of personal risk is based upon wether some other poor bugger can be claimed against???

Or is it that if it’s insurable it must be safe?

Either way your rationale doesn’t hold water.

.... and thank god the majority don’t hold the view of Sahjad or we would be in indefinite lockdown and 12,000 more deaths so far....

[coldel]

Uggers said:

I bowed out of this thread when I questioned the need to vaccinate newborns and the incoming 'reasoning' from vaccine zealots.

As a 41 year old I've had the 1st jab. My reasons are ultimately selfish the same as most as I know it will be a condition of me been able to work and provide for my family.

But risk to my life? It was a choice between nearly zero risk of covid, and zero risk of taking the vaccine. A decision about something so small in the past it wouldn't have been even a question to consider, but here we are.

Do I think my 13 year old son needs to be vaccinated or do I think I need to pay out of my taxes for the size of system in place to constantly vaccinate/boost nearly 70 million people forever more? No I don't. I think a line on the sand needs to be drawn between benefits and cost. Like any other decision was made in the past regarding medical services.

If that makes me an anti-vaxxer then so be it.

All of that makes sense and why vaccines went out to the oldest and most vulnerable first. Taking the vaccine is completely voluntary but we are seeing huge swathes of the country take it. I'm sure a line in the sand will eventually be drawn, but ultimately the public will probably make that decision as the whole thing is voluntary. There are plenty of things the country pays for to care for people as they get older the cost of which outweighs the cost of administering this vaccine thousands of times over, this will just become one of those things.

The problem that is out there, are people without the ability for rational thinking. We have seen one or two on here that cannot weigh up the relative merits of vast empirical data vs gossip and come to a reasoned conclusion. And as some have pointed out, if we all thought that way the death count would be multiples of what we have at the moment. Fortunately we don't.

Ultimately if you don't want to take it, you don't. Its a personal choice, but if that choice is based on some quite ridiculous 'facts' heard from 'a mate down the pub who knows this guy' then I cannot blame people on here for pointing out the error in that data.

[Munter]

Uggers said:

As a 41 year old I've had the 1st jab. My reasons are ultimately selfish the same as most as I know it will be a condition of me been able to work and provide for my family.

But risk to my life?

It's not about you. Masks were not about you. Distancing wasn't about you.

Are we really still struggling with this? We're trying to break the train of transmission so it doesn't get passed to someone at risk for whatever reason, and has less chance to mutate into something the vaccine is ineffective against, thus putting others at risk.

Or we could not. Which would help the over population of the planet. But seems people are averse to that option.

[ChocolateFrog]

V6 Pushfit said:

ChocolateFrog said:

It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.

I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.

I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".

Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.

If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.

Looks like you had better stop driving then

Why? There's lots of risks I choose to accept.

[liner33]

Hoink said:

Yes.

My wife can't have the AZ vaccine (high risk of blood clotting issues). She checked before travelling that Pfizer would be available but when she got there it wasn't. She came home and then arranged to book a Pfizer jab via the GP.

You could always walk out and book another slot if not happy.

ETA. Newcastle. Her first appointment was at the big nightingale being used to vaccinate people. Second appointment was at a local church hall which surprised me.

Edited by Hoink on Friday 14th May 19:54

I’ve been part of the ZOE app and have been reporting since this started , they have logged hundreds of thousands of vaccinations and last count there was 1 case of a blood clot in BOTH the AZ and Pfizer jabs and clots had shown up in 1 in 500000 jabs

[ChocolateFrog]

Munter said:

Or we could not. Which would help the over population of the planet. But seems people are averse to that option.

It won't though will it?

It's just not that dangerous.

If we're being generous it's 0.5% IFR and if you think that will help over population then I'd suggest you're in no place to lecture people about vaccinations and statistics.

[Driller]

paulguitar said:

Driller said:

What has Sahjahd said that is so loony-crazy that he has to be treated as one? Conversely one could call unthinking acceptors of the covid vaccine Vaxer-zealots but that’s just not useful for reasoned debate is it?

It's been said that having a sample size of 9 vaccinated friends and pointing out one got ill, potentially from the vaccine, whilst no personal friends suffered seriously from covid is not a good basis on which to decide whether to get vaccinated.

I'd like to think we all want the best for each other. Choosing to assess the situation using scientific, rather than anecdotal evidence, is a big step in the right direction.

Ok but that doesn’t make him a « loony » though does it?!!

And presumably it wasn’t just the part that one person got ill that was the deciding factor, it was almost the fact that he considers that he has pretty much zero risk of dying from corvid.

Look, you “risk” dying in a car accident every time you take your car but you still do it right?

There’s a very small chance of dying from both covid and the vaccine so I don’t understand what all the argument is about

Edited by Driller on Saturday 15th May 11:11

Edited by Driller on Saturday 15th May 11:12

[paulguitar]

Driller said:

paulguitar said:

Driller said:

What has Sahjahd said that is so loony-crazy that he has to be treated as one? Conversely one could call unthinking acceptors of the covid vaccine Vaxer-zealots but that’s just not useful for reasoned debate is it?

It's been said that having a sample size of 9 vaccinated friends and pointing out one got ill, potentially from the vaccine, whilst no personal friends suffered seriously from covid is not a good basis on which to decide whether to get vaccinated.

I'd like to think we all want the best for each other. Choosing to assess the situation using scientific, rather than anecdotal evidence, is a big step in the right direction.

Ok but that doesn’t make him a « loony » though does it?!!

And presumably it wasn’t just the part that one person got ill that was the deciding factor, it was almost the fact that he considers that he has pretty much zero risk of dying from corvid.

Look, you “risk” dying in a car accident every time you take your car but you still do it right?

Edited by Driller on Saturday 15th May 11:11

Not a 'loony', but a very poor way to assess risk to do so using a tiny sample size and anecdotal info.

It's also worth pointing out again that it's a matter not only of oneself. We're doing this for the overall good, basically. And yet one more thing, long covid...Mrs. Guitar is working with long covid patients in NYC and it is scary stuff. It's not merely about the risk of death.

[Driller]

paulguitar said:

Not a 'loony', but a very poor way to assess risk to do so using a tiny sample size and anecdotal info.

It's also worth pointing out again that it's a matter not only of oneself. We're doing this for the overall good, basically. And yet one more thing, long covid...Mrs. Guitar is working with long covid patients in NYC and it is scary stuff. It's not merely about the risk of death.

I added this after you quoted me above:

"There’s a very small chance of dying from both covid and the vaccine so I don’t understand what all the argument is about smile"


It’s no more of a poor way of assessing risk than looking at the old and sick dying and then considering you are at risk too.

As far as the “overall good” goes, what about all those poor patients who are immuno-depressed from AIDS, chemotherapy and liver, kidney snd heart transplants? They could die if they catch your cold or flu.

But nobody in the general population volunteered to get vaccinated to protect them in the past years did they? (yourself included).

Was that not selfish then?

Edited by Driller on Saturday 15th May 11:29

[Munter]

ChocolateFrog said:

Munter said:

Or we could not. Which would help the over population of the planet. But seems people are averse to that option.

It won't though will it?

It's just not that dangerous.

If we're being generous it's 0.5% IFR and if you think that will help over population then I'd suggest you're in no place to lecture people about vaccinations and statistics.

Christ, I said help with not complete. Less people is less people no matter how you look at it.

[paulguitar]

Driller said:

But nobody in the general population volunteered to get vaccinated to protect them in the past years did they? (yourself included).

Was that not selfish then?

Well, we were never asked to take a vaccine in this way before, so I can't see how we had any opportunity to be selfish?

[isaldiri]

liner33 said:

Hoink said:

Yes.

My wife can't have the AZ vaccine (high risk of blood clotting issues). She checked before travelling that Pfizer would be available but when she got there it wasn't. She came home and then arranged to book a Pfizer jab via the GP.

You could always walk out and book another slot if not happy.

ETA. Newcastle. Her first appointment was at the big nightingale being used to vaccinate people. Second appointment was at a local church hall which surprised me.

Edited by Hoink on Friday 14th May 19:54

I’ve been part of the ZOE app and have been reporting since this started , they have logged hundreds of thousands of vaccinations and last count there was 1 case of a blood clot in BOTH the AZ and Pfizer jabs and clots had shown up in 1 in 500000 jabs

Read the mhra yellow card reports. viTT incidence is a very specific type of blood clots clearly only showing up with the AZN (and JnJ where approved ) and not with the mRNA ones.

And agreed with the post earlier - you are asked if you're ok with the choice of vaccine on the day. If one feels that strongly about not taking the AZN one you can refuse.

[Driller]

paulguitar said:

Well, we were never asked to take a vaccine in this way before, so I can't see how we had any opportunity to be selfish?

Yes it’s strange you were never asked isn’t it? I wonder why not seeing as how it’s exactly the same principle.

Anyway now you know so will you now go and get vaccinated against seasonal flu and wear a mask and lock yourself down to protect these fragile people?

Obviously you will not but you get my point?

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

Driller said:

Yes it’s strange you were never asked isn’t it? I wonder why not seeing as how it’s exactly the same principle.

Anyway now you know so will you now go and get vaccinated against seasonal flu and wear a mask and lock yourself down to protect these fragile people?

Obviously you will not but you get my point?

If you think it's as straightforward as that then there's no arguing with you.

[anonymous-user]

Munter said:

ChocolateFrog said:

Munter said:

Or we could not. Which would help the over population of the planet. But seems people are averse to that option.

It won't though will it?

It's just not that dangerous.

If we're being generous it's 0.5% IFR and if you think that will help over population then I'd suggest you're in no place to lecture people about vaccinations and statistics.

Christ, I said help with not complete. Less people is less people no matter how you look at it.

Chocolate frog has plucked his IFR out of thin air anyway, it’s far higher.

It’s quite apparent part of the anti vaxxers reasoning is that THEY are in a low risk group so to hell with being vaccinated to help anyone else.

This subject really exposes the low moralled

[Driller]

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:

Driller said:

Yes it’s strange you were never asked isn’t it? I wonder why not seeing as how it’s exactly the same principle.

Anyway now you know so will you now go and get vaccinated against seasonal flu and wear a mask and lock yourself down to protect these fragile people?

Obviously you will not but you get my point?

If you think it's as straightforward as that then there's no arguing with you.

You see that’s my point, you think “it’s as straight forward as that” for the vaccine no?

Do you see the problem?

Well look, let’s get down to basics then. Why would you not want to help protect the above people I mentioned?