30 somethings - are you going to vax?
Discussion
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
V6 Pushfit said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
V6 Pushfit said:
Yes. That is who you leap in to defend.
I haven't leapt in to defend anyone. Please can you provide a quotation where he's said that, preferably including the date so I can quickly look back. I'm pretty sure he hasn't said that. If he has, he's an idiot. If he hasn't, then you're a liar. I thought with my post about vaccination status and determining whether you can't/can carry/transmit the virus was a misunderstanding of words perhaps, but this is fairly hard to confuse.
Are you his mum ?
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
So if I make a claim it's up to me to prove it. If you make a claim it's also up to me to prove it. Makes perfect sense.
I haven’t asked you to prove ‘it’. For my part I have stated what Davey83’s position has been in the past, look it up yourself.Mind you, coming from someone with the opinion that a valid alternative to the vax was for the entire UK population to be told to eat more veg, it doesn’t count for much.
Chromegrill said:
Thank you both posters above for posting the opinion piece and the response. The former makes for an engaging read, but with no disrespect to psychiatrists, it comes from a perspective which is unlikely to have been informed by someone on the front line of fighting the pandemic and mises many of the subtle nuances of the pandemic response that are misunderstood by, and therefore can seem to some people to indicate conspiracy. It ends up falling into the very trap he describes under "medical reversal" when facing a serious global health crisis with sometimes unclear and rapidly evolving evidence that requires shifts of gear or even shifts of direction as circumstances change.
It's less than two years ago since people in the UK first began dying from COVID-19. Initially we had only blunt tools to control its spread pending development of either effective vaccines or medications against COVID. Faced with a pretty grim situation situation scientists inevitably started off by studying medicines in common use to see if any would be helpful ("repurposing"). A few have proved to be of some help after going through rigorous clinical trials including dexamethasone, whilst others such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin didn't.
Worth interjecting here the importance of properly evaluating treatments, rather than giving things on a hunch. As an example, when we were reading technical reports from China and elsewhere in February 2020, it was clear that patients who were taking steroids or blood pressure treatments tended to be more likely to die, and for a short while there was a prevalence view that giving steroids might be positively dangerous. Only through carefully designed randomised controlled trials could it be established that they were genuinely helpful, since the initial descriptions of patients who died from COVID were unable to disentangle the fact that they often had pre-existing lung disease for which they were taking steriods, and the steroids were not contributing to their increased risk of death. Likewise there was an early view that perhaps people should stop taking ACE inhibitors (which work by blocking the same protein system that the COVID coronavirus latches onto to enter our cells), the theory being that these drugs might increase the likelihood of severe infection with coronavirus since people with high blood pressure were more likely to die from COVID. Again, rigorous research has given us a better understanding and shown that these medicines are not responsible for higher death rates from COVID, but coincidentally they tend to be prescribed more often to the sorts of people who are more likely to die from the infection.
It takes a rather longer time to develop medicines specifically against a new virus, and only now are we starting to see antiviral drugs come to the market. How much store we can place on them is debatable when viruses tend to be difficult beasts to develop effective medicines against. Monoclonal antibodies are another category of drugs that have taken less time to develop from scratch, though longer than the time spent trying to repurpose existing drugs. They can be fairly rapidly reformulated in the event of a new variant coming along that threatens the integrity of vaccine protection too but are complex and expensive to make so are only suitable for a limited number of patients.
As for comments in the original essay about eradicating the coronavirus, worth considering that the pandemic could have gone in a number of directions, not least if successful vaccines had not managed to be developed. Bear in mind too that the principle purpose of developing vaccines all the way along was to reduce the serious health impact of COVID-19 in non-immune people. It has been a huge achievement to develop vaccines that so dramatically reduce hospitalisations and deaths. If they also reduce spread of infection, and/or reduce the number of people with a mild infection, that's a bonus but not a dealbreaker.
Had many more countries had strict quarantines in February 2020, COVID-19 might possibly have been contained without further spread. Once it became pandemic, there was still a theoretical but increasingly unlikely window of opportunity to eradicate it around the world, either through rigorous contact tracing (in periods such as summer of 2020 when case rates had fallen) or through mass vaccination in early 2021 (before the emergence of new variants). When the vaccines were first introduced there was considerable uncertainty about whether they would lead to herd immunity (which could have potentially led to the virus dying out). This was explained very clearly in an excellent BBC article as early as February 2021, as it was never going to be possible for the original Phase 3 clinical trials of the main vaccines to demonstrate herd immunity. Demonstrating that, or demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in deaths would have effectively required an entire population to have been vaccinated in which case why bother doing the study. Furthermore, how anyone afford it, when the COVID vaccine trials which involved only tens of thousands of people were among the largest randomised clinical studies ever undertaken. No, the RCTs demonstrated that the vaccine prevented people very effectively from getting infected with coronavirus, and if you can't get infected, you can't die from the infection. Bear in mind that the vaccine trials were conducted during the summer of 2020 when there were relatively fewer infections around so they actually took a frustratingly longer time to establish the effectiveness of the vaccines (as the researchers had to wait longer for a big enough difference in infection rates to emerge between those given the vaccine and those given the placebo) than would have been the case had it ever been possible to conduct the studies during the spring 2020 wave.
During 2021 several other things happened. It became clear that the virus was being transferred to species of domestic and wild animal, and aside from domestic pets, once it gets into the animal world it's an altogether harder task to eradicate it. Just as evidence began to emerge showing that vaccination was highly effective at preventing spread of the original strains of coronavirus, mutations of the original Wuhan strains began to appear which were much more infectious (meaning a higher proportion of people would have to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity), combined with some degree of evasion from the immunity generated by vaccinations. We also began to realise that after a few months, protection against becoming infection starts to decline, though protection against mild infection declines rather faster than protection against serious infection. But there is nothing to indicate that most people would need more than three doses of vaccination - and to be fair, many infections besides COVID for which there are vaccines require that many doses to reach peak effect.
I hope that provides a little more context and nuance therefore to an extremely complex and changing global situation. An enormous amount has been learnt about COVID over the past two years. By now some things are pretty unambiguously clear and achieve near unanimity amongst medics and scientists. In other areas there is uncertainty, or it's recognised there is more than one way of achieving a goal; there you will find more convergent professional opinion. It may well not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the conduct of scientific research and its critical appraisal why certain things seem to be pretty settled (for instance the high level of effectiveness of COVID vaccinations for preventing deaths and hospital admissions) and why others are in the more convergent opinion group (face masks for instance - about which I've changed my own views at least twice during the pandemic). And when significant new evidence emerges, or the interaction between virus and population immunity changes substantially, a timely and effective response becomes necessary which on occasion might even look like a complete change of direction.
Thanks for that, refreshing to read something that wasn’t copied and pasted from social media or a Mexican website with little thought or understanding. Well done. It's less than two years ago since people in the UK first began dying from COVID-19. Initially we had only blunt tools to control its spread pending development of either effective vaccines or medications against COVID. Faced with a pretty grim situation situation scientists inevitably started off by studying medicines in common use to see if any would be helpful ("repurposing"). A few have proved to be of some help after going through rigorous clinical trials including dexamethasone, whilst others such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin didn't.
Worth interjecting here the importance of properly evaluating treatments, rather than giving things on a hunch. As an example, when we were reading technical reports from China and elsewhere in February 2020, it was clear that patients who were taking steroids or blood pressure treatments tended to be more likely to die, and for a short while there was a prevalence view that giving steroids might be positively dangerous. Only through carefully designed randomised controlled trials could it be established that they were genuinely helpful, since the initial descriptions of patients who died from COVID were unable to disentangle the fact that they often had pre-existing lung disease for which they were taking steriods, and the steroids were not contributing to their increased risk of death. Likewise there was an early view that perhaps people should stop taking ACE inhibitors (which work by blocking the same protein system that the COVID coronavirus latches onto to enter our cells), the theory being that these drugs might increase the likelihood of severe infection with coronavirus since people with high blood pressure were more likely to die from COVID. Again, rigorous research has given us a better understanding and shown that these medicines are not responsible for higher death rates from COVID, but coincidentally they tend to be prescribed more often to the sorts of people who are more likely to die from the infection.
It takes a rather longer time to develop medicines specifically against a new virus, and only now are we starting to see antiviral drugs come to the market. How much store we can place on them is debatable when viruses tend to be difficult beasts to develop effective medicines against. Monoclonal antibodies are another category of drugs that have taken less time to develop from scratch, though longer than the time spent trying to repurpose existing drugs. They can be fairly rapidly reformulated in the event of a new variant coming along that threatens the integrity of vaccine protection too but are complex and expensive to make so are only suitable for a limited number of patients.
As for comments in the original essay about eradicating the coronavirus, worth considering that the pandemic could have gone in a number of directions, not least if successful vaccines had not managed to be developed. Bear in mind too that the principle purpose of developing vaccines all the way along was to reduce the serious health impact of COVID-19 in non-immune people. It has been a huge achievement to develop vaccines that so dramatically reduce hospitalisations and deaths. If they also reduce spread of infection, and/or reduce the number of people with a mild infection, that's a bonus but not a dealbreaker.
Had many more countries had strict quarantines in February 2020, COVID-19 might possibly have been contained without further spread. Once it became pandemic, there was still a theoretical but increasingly unlikely window of opportunity to eradicate it around the world, either through rigorous contact tracing (in periods such as summer of 2020 when case rates had fallen) or through mass vaccination in early 2021 (before the emergence of new variants). When the vaccines were first introduced there was considerable uncertainty about whether they would lead to herd immunity (which could have potentially led to the virus dying out). This was explained very clearly in an excellent BBC article as early as February 2021, as it was never going to be possible for the original Phase 3 clinical trials of the main vaccines to demonstrate herd immunity. Demonstrating that, or demonstrating a statistically significant reduction in deaths would have effectively required an entire population to have been vaccinated in which case why bother doing the study. Furthermore, how anyone afford it, when the COVID vaccine trials which involved only tens of thousands of people were among the largest randomised clinical studies ever undertaken. No, the RCTs demonstrated that the vaccine prevented people very effectively from getting infected with coronavirus, and if you can't get infected, you can't die from the infection. Bear in mind that the vaccine trials were conducted during the summer of 2020 when there were relatively fewer infections around so they actually took a frustratingly longer time to establish the effectiveness of the vaccines (as the researchers had to wait longer for a big enough difference in infection rates to emerge between those given the vaccine and those given the placebo) than would have been the case had it ever been possible to conduct the studies during the spring 2020 wave.
During 2021 several other things happened. It became clear that the virus was being transferred to species of domestic and wild animal, and aside from domestic pets, once it gets into the animal world it's an altogether harder task to eradicate it. Just as evidence began to emerge showing that vaccination was highly effective at preventing spread of the original strains of coronavirus, mutations of the original Wuhan strains began to appear which were much more infectious (meaning a higher proportion of people would have to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity), combined with some degree of evasion from the immunity generated by vaccinations. We also began to realise that after a few months, protection against becoming infection starts to decline, though protection against mild infection declines rather faster than protection against serious infection. But there is nothing to indicate that most people would need more than three doses of vaccination - and to be fair, many infections besides COVID for which there are vaccines require that many doses to reach peak effect.
I hope that provides a little more context and nuance therefore to an extremely complex and changing global situation. An enormous amount has been learnt about COVID over the past two years. By now some things are pretty unambiguously clear and achieve near unanimity amongst medics and scientists. In other areas there is uncertainty, or it's recognised there is more than one way of achieving a goal; there you will find more convergent professional opinion. It may well not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the conduct of scientific research and its critical appraisal why certain things seem to be pretty settled (for instance the high level of effectiveness of COVID vaccinations for preventing deaths and hospital admissions) and why others are in the more convergent opinion group (face masks for instance - about which I've changed my own views at least twice during the pandemic). And when significant new evidence emerges, or the interaction between virus and population immunity changes substantially, a timely and effective response becomes necessary which on occasion might even look like a complete change of direction.
R Mutt said:
jjlynn27 said:
R Mutt said:
jjlynn27 said:
R Mutt said:
More specifics please.
Thus far you've only referred to my completely irrelevant post in another thread and ignored questions about vaccine efficacy, except the fact that it's proven to be 95% effective over the weeks of the trial.
I referenced to that post for two reasons; a) says a lot about you, b) you are ignorant about subjects that you are discussing. Thus far you've only referred to my completely irrelevant post in another thread and ignored questions about vaccine efficacy, except the fact that it's proven to be 95% effective over the weeks of the trial.
Given your ignorance and that I'm feeling charitable; you made a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence for that claim. If you were marginally better educated you'd understand that.
You are unable to find the article using a direct quote and the publication? If you are not capable of doing that there is very little point to spoon feed you.
Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 1st February 20:08
The episode with the doc shows laughable ignorance where you couldn't figure out what MDU and who they represent. Furthermore, you are so painfully insecure that you couldn't muster the courage to apologize for insinuating that he is not a doctor. Do you understand now? Nod once for yes, twice for no.
I'm not going to play the game of 'what are you actually asking me' after being quite clear, on several occasions, about what evidence I'm after. Just like rex, you are not providing any evidence about governments, around the world, with all the actual experts at their disposal, being conned or duped or whatever term you were using.
ETA: Try to read a few posts above by Chromegrill. I have no idea who he/she is, but those posts show someone who is highly educated in addition to demonstrably knowing what they are posting about.
What's your take on chemtrails, yey or ney?
Edited by jjlynn27 on Tuesday 1st February 23:58
Edited by jjlynn27 on Wednesday 2nd February 07:29
Vaccine proponents don't seem particularly interested in discussing efficacy other than that presented in trials, or that it has some efficacy, but if you are you should either state you're still confident with that 95% figure or what you feel that figure is now in the real world and how that should impact our future strategy, especially in light of Omicron.
I've yet to see you state why you were vaccinated either
You really don’t like this fact do you.
davey83 said:
Great rebuttal.
I've just proven it's a thing - glad I've brought you up to speed, don't feel bad you brought it up - you only know what you know right. Next, we'll do how governments/public were conned into believing you can jab effectively against an ever changing virus.
What's that coming over the hill, is it a variant - is it a variant. Best book your 4th and 5th jabs now ay, along with the annual flu jab for good measure as we all know how effective those are.
It’s the people around you I feel sorry for.I've just proven it's a thing - glad I've brought you up to speed, don't feel bad you brought it up - you only know what you know right. Next, we'll do how governments/public were conned into believing you can jab effectively against an ever changing virus.
What's that coming over the hill, is it a variant - is it a variant. Best book your 4th and 5th jabs now ay, along with the annual flu jab for good measure as we all know how effective those are.
Chromegrill said:
Says who? Not in the UK, the NHS vaccine mandate which was just kicked into the long grass required a maximum of two doses!
Added to which - it’s if no concern how many future jabs there are as it’s a continually evolving situation. The anti vaxers really seem to think it’s a big deal but it’s not. The jab takes seconds it’s a shame some have needle fear. PurplePangolin said:
V6 Pushfit said:
Chromegrill said:
Says who? Not in the UK, the NHS vaccine mandate which was just kicked into the long grass required a maximum of two doses!
Added to which - it’s if no concern how many future jabs there are as it’s a continually evolving situation. The anti vaxers really seem to think it’s a big deal but it’s not. The jab takes seconds it’s a shame some have needle fear. Hopefully your constant jabs won’t damage your natural immune system in the long term - still you’ll probably be alright as you have no concern about how many future jabs you have.
ILikeCake said:
davey83 said:
I've not gone into the whole 95% protection from covid thing as it a blatant con and hasn't materialised outside of fraudulent clinical trials of which folks have zero concern in the request to have the data buried for 55yrs.
You seem to say alot without actually making any sense. Either you can answer the basic question above or you can't. Insults aside, answer the question.
I've already shown you a talk from a scientist at the UN
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-...
Thousands of planes would fly at high altitudes, spraying millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the surface.
If it's in the MSM, chances are it already been happening.
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
There is evidence that planes are starting to release an airborne vaccine in their chem trails. Why do you think government's recently increased air travel?You seem to say alot without actually making any sense. Either you can answer the basic question above or you can't. Insults aside, answer the question.
I've already shown you a talk from a scientist at the UN
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-...
Thousands of planes would fly at high altitudes, spraying millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the surface.
If it's in the MSM, chances are it already been happening.
https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex
You might as well get jabbed now. Safer than breathing it in.
R Mutt said:
Says much of the Continent. Different rules but it's the same virus.
The fact that only 2 jabs were mandated for the NHS was surely a matter of timing and logistics. Contradictory that they'd not require any more while heavily pushing the booster.
Great, so I can decline the COVID+Flu jab AKA 5th/ on the same basis as the standalone Flu jab then, that I don't need it, and wasn't given the emotional blackmail.
Why do we suddenly not need 4th jabs (like Israel, Germany and others) along the same quarterly schedule? I can't see what's changed except Omicron. It's certainly not that the 3rd time was the charm, with hospitalisations and cases still around the level of previous peaks.
Oh do stop moaning about everything. Nothings right and it’s all someone else’s fault in your world. The fact that only 2 jabs were mandated for the NHS was surely a matter of timing and logistics. Contradictory that they'd not require any more while heavily pushing the booster.
Great, so I can decline the COVID+Flu jab AKA 5th/ on the same basis as the standalone Flu jab then, that I don't need it, and wasn't given the emotional blackmail.
Why do we suddenly not need 4th jabs (like Israel, Germany and others) along the same quarterly schedule? I can't see what's changed except Omicron. It's certainly not that the 3rd time was the charm, with hospitalisations and cases still around the level of previous peaks.
Edited by R Mutt on Thursday 3rd February 10:10
Edited by R Mutt on Thursday 3rd February 10:11
davey83 said:
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center...
Chris Whitty's baby as he is the chief medical officer.
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/christopher-w...
Talk about not biting the hand that feeds you.
Look, if these glaringly obvious dots aren't showing an indication of conflict of interest, then all one can do is shake hands and say God bless.
Bill Gates is a man. Chris Whitty's baby as he is the chief medical officer.
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/christopher-w...
Talk about not biting the hand that feeds you.
Look, if these glaringly obvious dots aren't showing an indication of conflict of interest, then all one can do is shake hands and say God bless.
Edited by davey83 on Thursday 3rd February 14:27
Chris Whitty is also a man.
Is this what you’re getting at, those dots?
Or is it some bizarre trumped up fantasy of a donation 21 years ago in support of Bill Gates personal mission to stamp out malaria being used to bribe Chris Whitty just in case there’s a future global pandemic so Bill Gates can make more money he doesn’t need? Nah, that would just make you look like a frothing idiot so can’t be that.
R Mutt said:
Surely everyone here can agree we should carry on as we have as of last Thursday with perhaps an annual jab, but that would mean these other countries have gone a bit vaccine crazy, and to admit that would be anti vax.
This says it all. You actually believe you have a handle on what should or shouldn’t happen and anything conflicting with this is wrong.Have you thought how weird you post is?
davey83 said:
VTC said:
V6
what will you do with your actual life once this finally subsides?
you appear a little obsessed to the casual bystander, just saying!
^ this what will you do with your actual life once this finally subsides?
you appear a little obsessed to the casual bystander, just saying!
Is it some bizarre trumped up fantasy of a donation 21 years ago in support of Bill Gates personal mission to stamp out malaria being used to bribe Chris Whitty just in case there’s a future global pandemic so Bill Gates can make more money he doesn’t need ?
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
I just want to hear your opinion on whether you think it should be approved, and if it is, whether you think it's a good idea, or can't you answer?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/chi...
By using a seemingly derogatory term such as "antivax kindergarten" am I to assume you think it is a good idea?
I have no opinions on under 5’s. And won’t bother replying to any more of your puerile deflections to save your child embarrassment. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/chi...
By using a seemingly derogatory term such as "antivax kindergarten" am I to assume you think it is a good idea?
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
V6 Pushfit said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
I just want to hear your opinion on whether you think it should be approved, and if it is, whether you think it's a good idea, or can't you answer?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/chi...
By using a seemingly derogatory term such as "antivax kindergarten" am I to assume you think it is a good idea?
I have no opinions on under 5’s. And won’t bother replying to any more of your puerile deflections to save your child embarrassment. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/chi...
By using a seemingly derogatory term such as "antivax kindergarten" am I to assume you think it is a good idea?
davey83 said:
No opinion for the under 5's, possibly as the fact checkers haven't published their propaganda campaign for this demographic as yet.
Nice work on the above, I don't know how you keep doing it. Well you work in healthcare so comes as second nature I guess. The matter of data, facts and figures went out the window in the summer of 2020 for most. You're either happy to continue on the jab subscription program or you're not. Thankfully more and more people are waking up and choosing not too, for a virus (exclusively) that has sadly killed 17,000 people in the UK out of some 66,000,000.
One can't attribute the vaccine driving down cases and deaths, otherwise all those other countries with low radweld take-up would still be suffering huge waves of covid illnesses and deaths throughout 2021 and they went - not even close.
Nice work on the above, I don't know how you keep doing it. Well you work in healthcare so comes as second nature I guess. The matter of data, facts and figures went out the window in the summer of 2020 for most. You're either happy to continue on the jab subscription program or you're not. Thankfully more and more people are waking up and choosing not too, for a virus (exclusively) that has sadly killed 17,000 people in the UK out of some 66,000,000.
One can't attribute the vaccine driving down cases and deaths, otherwise all those other countries with low radweld take-up would still be suffering huge waves of covid illnesses and deaths throughout 2021 and they went - not even close.
davey83 said:
Clearly conned as you can't vax your way out of covid. Vax or no vaccine, covid is here to stay and with an IFR of 99.97% and getting evidently less pathogenic mandates, passports and jab everyone don't make any sense. So if it's not mandatory for healthcare works to have the jab who see the majority of the vulnerable, clearly jab isn't the way out if anything. Again counties with low radweld take-up, people aren't dropping in the streets.
Difficult to know where to start with posts like these. Just repeating the same old rubbish for effect I presume. Have you ever dabbled with drugs, and possibly sci-fi ? They’re a combination that would explain a lot. Either way, and to repeat for the umpteenth time you should get help.Now awaits Davey83’s Mum to chime in.
davey83 said:
^ bingo. All he has is sly remarks, which shows very much the mindset of such an individual. Zero rebuttal against the data, so falls back on insults and excuses.
Drugs and sci-fi? It wasn’t sly it was a straight question. Or swerve that and just keep on posting tosh it’s not as though you haven’t had 2 years of posting make-believe you’ve found on the internet. Mind you I’m sure we would miss the copy pasted statements and daft links. Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff