CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[Gadgetmac]

Scolmore said:

Gadgetmac said:

You have data to the contrary? I'm all ears

I provided you with ~55,000 adverse reaction reports filed by healthcare professionals in Europe. Those reports include death and spontaneous abortions. Each will need to be investigated thoroughly before any pronouncement can be made though.
Unfortunately your stance is too black and white to allow you to discuss, you'd rather attack people.

ADR's are not all deaths they might include a very few - none of the deaths that happened have, on investigation, been attributed to the vaccine.

Try reading this and ingesting it...

https://www.thejournal.ie/pfizer-biontech-covid19-...

'European Medicines Agency confirms no deaths have been linked to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine'


Once again you are pedalling doubt where none exists.

If that's "attacking people" then 'guily' m'lud.

[Gadgetmac]

ElectricSoup said:

Northernboy said:

ElectricSoup said:

If we vaccinate all the over 50s but let it rip in younger age groups where it's not a fatal disease, it will mutate and it will eventually beat the vaccines. Putting us back at square one in a vicious cycle of lockdowns and vaccine production..

To avoid this we’ll need to wait until the whole world is vaccinated before we ease restrictions.

Pretty much, yes.

I would think that if we can successfully control the borders then we can ease restrictions in the UK. This may mean that we have to impose vaccine passports on foreigners entering the UK or even UK residents going abroad - undoubtedly foreign governments will want to see proof of vaccination if we are demanding to see their nationals supplying it.

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

ElectricSoup said:

I give up. This thread is stuffed with people simply looking for an opportunity to make a smart arsed comment and post a ROFL.

See ya.

you can thank gadget man for the abundance of smileys.

Well you will keep posting stuff deserving of a whole bag of

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

Gadgetmac said:

320d is all you need said:

Northernboy said:

Hoink said:

There is a big difference between being a true anti vaxxer and not wanting this one vaccine. Anti vaxxer is just yet another label being used these days.

There could be a difference, but I’ve not seen anything to suggest that that’s the case.

Those pushing the anti-vax agenda do seem to match the stereotype of conspiracy theorists, and they are using the classic arguments and tactics, which doesn’t really suggest a rational, evidence-based concern about the vaccine.

You and Gadgetmac really seem like the arbiters of what everyone thinks.

You are wrong.

Hoink is correct.



I have had all my vaccinations, and additional ones. I'm not having this one, because it's too new for my personal liking with insufficient testing in my personal opinion.

That makes me an anti vaxxer in your books.

You are mis representing many posters (and by proxy hundreds of thousands of peoples viewpoints).

That's fine if you are not taking the vaccine for personal reasons but not fine when you start pedalling misinformation about the facts/stats as you in particular are prone to do.

Weren't you the one pedalling the Canada email yesterday? "When will people wake up to it" or some such comment.

Try keeping your theories out of it and just stating what is known to be true and nobody will have an issue with it.

Can you please quote me a single time where I have "pedalled misinformation about facts or stats"

Since I'm prone to do.

Specifically regarding anti vaccination

Thanks

Did you or did you not post what I've said you posted about the Canada email?

Simple question, yes or no?

[Gadgetmac]

purplepenguin said:

I would challenge your assertion that those with a scientific background being comfortable with being vaccinated.

Perhaps you could supply a list of scientists involved in the creation of - or specialising in - the covid vaccines who aren’t comfortable with it?

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Which was actually mentioned and brought up by someone who tosses the anti vaxxer label around.

Well when people come onto the anti-vaxxer thread to defend the anti-vaccine argument...what would you like me to call these people?

[Gadgetmac]

bodhi said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well when people come onto the anti-vaxxer thread to defend the anti-vaccine argument...what would you like me to call these people?

People with concerns about the newly developed vaccines you are doing bugger all to help alleviate at a guess.

You’re NEVER going to help alleviate the concerns of dyed in the wool anti-vaxxers no matter what you post.

They’ll just end up slipping away from these threads as time progresses and their arguments are proven to be what the vast majority of us know they are. Unfounded.

[Gadgetmac]

funkyrobot said:

Gadgetmac said:

bodhi said:

Gadgetmac said:

Well when people come onto the anti-vaxxer thread to defend the anti-vaccine argument...what would you like me to call these people?

People with concerns about the newly developed vaccines you are doing bugger all to help alleviate at a guess.

You’re NEVER going to help alleviate the concerns of dyed in the wool anti-vaxxers no matter what you post.

They’ll just end up slipping away from these threads as time progresses and their arguments are proven to be what the vast majority of us know they are. Unfounded.

Slipping away. Like you slipped away from the other Covid thread because you didnt like the responses?

Yet more misinformation

Colour me surprised.

[Gadgetmac]

bodhi said:

Gadgetmac said:

You’re NEVER going to help alleviate the concerns of dyed in the wool anti-vaxxers no matter what you post.

They’ll just end up slipping away from these threads as time progresses and their arguments are proven to be what the vast majority of us know they are. Unfounded.

Looks more to me like they give up and ask their questions elsewhere as the first answer normally involves something about being an anti-vaxxer, then usually followed up by some sneering comment about The Science (TM) and something about killing Grandma.

But sure, you're never going to help them. Maybe in future, try?

The science/data is pointed out frequently.

You can lead a horse to water...

[Gadgetmac]

So you have a...

yellowjack said:

Gut feeling

...that the vaccine was rushed whilst believing that you’ll also be...

yellowjack said:

...taking a huge risk with my future health.

...by taking the vaccine despite having no data that would fuel that belief and the fact that over 180 million have now been vaccinated with no known deaths from it.

OK.

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

otolith said:

As far as I know we aren't deliberately vaccinating pregnant women or young children.

Surely the question is why are we not vaccinating pregnant women. If the vaccine is totally harmless then why not jab them. Why does it even need a different approval rating is its so harmless. Do the advocates of the C19 vaccine agree we should bypass the approval and start jabbing today?

Pregnant women weren’t involved in the stage 1 trials so cannot be vaccinated. This is common sense. We are waiting to see the data from those women who got pregnant having started the trial or having had the vaccine now.

To quote:

That evidence is important because it tells us about risk. If the virus presents a major risk to pregnant women, then it's possible that pregnant women might be offered a vaccine sooner. Decisionmakers should always weigh the risk of vaccination compared with the risk of being unvaccinated against a disease that can cause serious harms. By next year, we will hopefully have a clearer picture on both sides of the equation.

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

otolith said:

purplepenguin said:

Any risk from the vaccine, given that at say 27years old, the risk from a covid infection is minuscule.

Can you or the scientists guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus from these vaccines?

Can you or the quacks on YouTube guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus or mother from Covid?

I think you should answer the question since you have a PHD in Biology.

I think you should answer my question about your spreading of misinformation re the Canada email first

[Gadgetmac]

scottyp123 said:

Gadgetmac said:

scottyp123 said:

otolith said:

As far as I know we aren't deliberately vaccinating pregnant women or young children.

Surely the question is why are we not vaccinating pregnant women. If the vaccine is totally harmless then why not jab them. Why does it even need a different approval rating is its so harmless. Do the advocates of the C19 vaccine agree we should bypass the approval and start jabbing today?

Pregnant women weren’t involved in the stage 1 trials so cannot be vaccinated. This is common sense. We are waiting to see the data from those women who got pregnant having started the trial or having had the vaccine now.

To quote:

That evidence is important because it tells us about risk. If the virus presents a major risk to pregnant women, then it's possible that pregnant women might be offered a vaccine sooner. Decisionmakers should always weigh the risk of vaccination compared with the risk of being unvaccinated against a disease that can cause serious harms. By next year, we will hopefully have a clearer picture on both sides of the equation.

Yea but if its safe just bypass the restrictions, it wont matter if its safe and it will protect them. Dont forget we're talking about granny here and if it saves just one life.

If they haven’t been involved in the stage 1, 2 or 3 trials you can’t say it’s safe for them. People who have been through those stages however...

[Gadgetmac]

purplepenguin said:

Gadgetmac said:

320d is all you need said:

otolith said:

purplepenguin said:

Any risk from the vaccine, given that at say 27years old, the risk from a covid infection is minuscule.

Can you or the scientists guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus from these vaccines?

Can you or the quacks on YouTube guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus or mother from Covid?

I think you should answer the question since you have a PHD in Biology.

I think you should answer my question about your spreading of misinformation re the Canada email first

You are diverting attention away from the initial question. Stop answering a reasonable question with another question.

Are you unable to answer my question? If that is the case, just admit that you don’t have the necessary information.

By associating me with quacks on YouTube, you are calling me a quack - try not to shame because you can’t or won’t answer - it’s not a good look.

No, I personally could not guarantee that no harm would come from a covid infection, only that healthy humans have a mechanism to deal with infective agents - it’s called an immune system.

I don’t know of any serious complications arising from covid infections in pregnant women.

If you can’t even follow the line of conversation above what hope have you with vaccines? I was talking to 320d

[Gadgetmac]

purplepenguin said:

Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are dealing with people on here with no scientific background, that way lies dunning kruger

So, er, who’s the anti-vaxxer on here with the ‘scientific background’ because if he exists he’s certainly flying under the radar with his posts.

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

Gadgetmac said:

320d is all you need said:

otolith said:

purplepenguin said:

Any risk from the vaccine, given that at say 27years old, the risk from a covid infection is minuscule.

Can you or the scientists guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus from these vaccines?

Can you or the quacks on YouTube guarantee absolutely no harm to a foetus or mother from Covid?

I think you should answer the question since you have a PHD in Biology.

I think you should answer my question about your spreading of misinformation re the Canada email first

I asked you to quote mis information regarding Anti-vaccination . You haven't been able to do that. Clearly you have the time.

I asked you about your canada email post first. Quite a few pages back. You have still refused to answer it.

I see the mods have now removed your post and quite rightly too. You clearly have a history and propensity for posting wrong, deliberately misleading and outright bullst conspiracy theories on other threads.

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

Gadgetmac said:

I asked you about your canada email post first. Quite a few pages back. You have still refused to answer it.

I see the mods have now removed your post and quite rightly too. You clearly have a history and propensity for posting wrong, deliberately misleading and outright bullst conspiracy theories on other threads.

Get a job. And a life.

You make these claims and can't substantiate them. Repeatedly.

You are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong .

You clearly dislike freedom of choice AND speech.

I make NO claims about you that I can’t back up, it’s you who does that all over the forum and then gets his conspiracy theory posts removed.

Oh and I have both a job and a life and it’s not spent wearing shiny headgear like you.

[Gadgetmac]

320d is all you need said:

Gadgetmac said:

320d is all you need said:

Gadgetmac said:

I asked you about your canada email post first. Quite a few pages back. You have still refused to answer it.

I see the mods have now removed your post and quite rightly too. You clearly have a history and propensity for posting wrong, deliberately misleading and outright bullst conspiracy theories on other threads.

Get a job. And a life.

You make these claims and can't substantiate them. Repeatedly.

You are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong .

You clearly dislike freedom of choice AND speech.

I make NO claims about you that I can’t back up, it’s you who does that all over the forum and then gets his conspiracy theory posts removed.

Oh and I have both a job and a life and it’s not spent wearing shiny headgear like you.

Go on then, as I said

Since you have nothing but time to spend on this forum;

Go and find some quotes that I mentioned about specifically Anti-Vax. This is the second time I've asked now.

You can't. Because I haven't spread ANY specific mis information about the vaccination other than words to the effect of I personally do not want it because I would like to see more testing / data and my own personal risk profile or other queries / questions about how it effects people.

I've not said "The vaccination will kill you" or "the vaccination causes deaths" or "the vaccination is mind control drugs" or anything like that.... !!!

I also made only a couple of mentions to the Canada email, barely a few, less than 1% of the content on any of the Covid threads - andif you bothered to read my posts you'd understand I don't believe in necessarily, it just worries me when there are parallels in what was said in that E-mail and what is happening.

You are mis representing me deliberately to make me appear like a fruit cake and you appear like the oracle / expert on such matters.

That is a CLASSIC "strawman" - you absolutely love doing it. I'd brand you a troll but usually a troll can be funny in some way, where as you are not.

Unless you can quote me on "....a history and propensity for posting wrong, deliberately misleading and outright bullst conspiracy theories" then I will have nothing else to say to you.

Good day.

I’ve never once said you’ve posted anti-vax misinformation. Show me where I said that...I’ll wait but I think I could grow old before you come back to me with it.

I said you had a propensity to post bullst and you do as your canada email post proved the other day. If you can post that guff elsewhere on the Covid threads then your input here is going to be questioned.

You actually said “When will people wake up to this???” as regards the Canada email. It was hilarious.

And by the way, you can’t really troll a thread you started.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 15th February 19:41

[Gadgetmac]

98elise said:

yellowjack said:

Gadgetmac said:

So you have a...

yellowjack said:

Gut feeling

...that the vaccine was rushed whilst believing that you’ll also be...

yellowjack said:

...taking a huge risk with my future health.

...by taking the vaccine despite having no data that would fuel that belief and the fact that over 180 million have now been vaccinated with no known deaths from it.

OK.

I've yet to see a daily death toll for the "number of people who have died within 28 days of receiving a Covid vaccination" though. Despite the fact that it's statistically impossible for there to have been zero deaths for people in that category, given the age groups targeted for early vaccinations. But every day the "number of people who have died within 28 days of a positive Covid test" is disseminated by a VERY serious looking Hugh Edwards, and we are expected to accept it as Gospel. When the truth is that most people in that category are dying with Covid, rather than from it. Or they may even be fully recovered from it and die of something completely unrelated. This is the danger with data and statistics. It is curated, edited, and presented to us by those with a vested interest in the outcome. So they tend to elevate the risk of the disease, and suppress any risk from their response to it. The same with anti-vaxxers. They take the same raw data and process it in a different way to come up with a contrary set of conclusions. Neither side will be proved entirely right, nor entirely wrong, I suspect. But I feel that the vaccination lobby will be closer to "right" than those opposed. What I'm saying is that I'm keen to wait until the pro-restrictions, pro-mask wearing, pro-vaccine Lemmings have been studied in greater detail for a longer period before I assess where the risk/reward balance point is and jump on the bandwagon myself...

Covid kills people, the vaccine doesn't. We have empirical evidence of that.

There is no point recording the number of people who die within 28 days of a vaccination, because they are not related (unless you have empirical evidence to the contrary). You might as well link drinking coffee with in 28 days.

There is no point you assessing the risk if you ignore evidence/facts over opinion. Opinion isn't evidence.

Anti-vaxxers are incapable of understanding this point.

It’ll come up again very shortly, it’s like they have a brain freeze when it’s explained to them for the umpteenth time.

It’ll be raised again in the coming day or two.

[Gadgetmac]

grumbledoak said:

Blue62 said:

You see what you want to see through a very narrow lense. When you talk of vitriol and coercion, name calling ask yourself how Karen thinks. It applies equally to both sides but you seem to think you occupy the moral high ground in this. I’m pragmatic, the whole thing is an unholy mess due in no small part by an inept government, who rely on arse covering and opinion polls. The only obvious route out is to vaccinate as many who will take it, I don’t see another route, do you?

It isn't difficult to be on morally higher ground than our government in this.

No I don't see lockdown and medical tyranny as the only route out. Our government seem to have selected them last March and are clinging doggedly to that plan, using some very unpleasant PsyOps to keep the public too scared and uncertain to act against them.
For any aspect of this that could have been done differently, from democracy to law to human dignity to mask mandates and alternate therapeutics, you can find a country trying them. Why didn't we?

I think you’ll find most western countries caught up in this to the extent that the UK has been adopted a very similar strategy of lockdowns.