Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
gts.981 said:
Exactly! They had been exposed to it like everyone r de and it had no effect on them.
BECAUSE.
ITS.
NOT.
THAT.
SERIOUS!!!!
Having read all the above, what brings you to the conclusion that the entire 66 million of us have been exposed to it and that it’s not that serious? BECAUSE.
ITS.
NOT.
THAT.
SERIOUS!!!!
gts.981 said:
V6 Pushfit said:
...and in my experience of talking to anti vaxxers it’s because they believe that 100,000 deaths out of 66m is too tiny a proportion to make a fuss about. Completely missing the point that (at the time) there were still 60m++ that hadn’t had it yet.
Exactly! They had been exposed to it like everyone r de and it had no effect on them. BECAUSE.
ITS.
NOT.
THAT.
SERIOUS!!!!
AlvinSultana said:
20.5m people vaccinated in this country alone.
Deaths zero.
Although we are all now sleepers waiting to be activated at the whim of our master Lord Gates.
Ignoring your error in reading the latest figures - what happened when the lockdown was ended too soon before Christmas? Deaths zero.
Although we are all now sleepers waiting to be activated at the whim of our master Lord Gates.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd March 07:20
I posted this the other day about what the endgame is, how far we go? Be interested in peoples considered thoughts on this.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
Uggers said:
Do you not think about what where this ends up?
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
shost said:
monkfish1 said:
Long term effecys is the only reason i wont take it. Your dismissivness of narcolepsy is a bit sad. For those affected, some at least, its pretty grim and a life changing condition. One in 18000 is hardly low. Thats a greater risk than dying in an RTA.
Which is the driver. The risk of covid is known. The risk from long term effects is unknown. The risk from covid (for me) is less than an RTA. But i still drive, as do most of us.
What long term side effecs am i worried about? How can anyone know that? We dont know what, if any there might be. Other than saying, a temporary side effect doesnt concern me at all, but a long term debilitating effect (like narcolepsy) definitely does.
In a nutshell, the risk to me of covid is tiny, the long term risks from the vaccine(s) unknown. To take it is a leap of faith that it will be OK. Lets hope it is for everyones sake. The thought of a widespread serious side effect doesnt bear thinking about.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of narcolepsy but with all conditions there is a range of severity and in relation to Pandremix vaccine no definitive causal link or significantly increased risk has been confirmed. Some reports put it at 1 in 27,000 odd but there were only statistically significant cases in those two Scandinavian studies. Which is the driver. The risk of covid is known. The risk from long term effects is unknown. The risk from covid (for me) is less than an RTA. But i still drive, as do most of us.
What long term side effecs am i worried about? How can anyone know that? We dont know what, if any there might be. Other than saying, a temporary side effect doesnt concern me at all, but a long term debilitating effect (like narcolepsy) definitely does.
In a nutshell, the risk to me of covid is tiny, the long term risks from the vaccine(s) unknown. To take it is a leap of faith that it will be OK. Lets hope it is for everyones sake. The thought of a widespread serious side effect doesnt bear thinking about.
I would challenge that the risk of being killed in a car is less than risk of dying of COVID, not higher. It’s very hard to compare but by billion vehicles miles travelled its 1.8 fatalities. I’ve seen 1 in 200 quoted lifetime risk but it’s not clear how they achieve that figure.
But as we’ve said many have not been exposed to COVID due to lockdown etc, where as most of us have been in a car. So my point is I don’t think the risk from the virus is small but I do feel that risk from the vaccine is very small. But, I’m happy to be corrected.
That said the fear of a long term debilitating condition is not unreasonable but I would stress that no recent vaccines to best of my knowledge have been proven to cause anything like that. Not even Pandremix where concerns were raised within one to two months of that vaccine.
Edited by shost on Tuesday 2nd March 23:56
The risk of an RTA isnt anything like 1 in 200 in a life time. In a really crude calculation its 1 in 4700 or so over a lifetime. In a year its 1 in 87,000. (based on2019 nuners) Covid wont be a threat for ever, so "lifetime" nubers dont mean much.
I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?
So, ignoring driving, if the chances of dying from covid is circa i in 80,000. The numbers dont really take into account how fat you are, which im not, so id suggest my risk is lower, but its not possible to take it down accurately to an individual level. I might have something that makes my risk higher. I dont know about, but its possible. The vaccine needs to be demonstrably better than that. It could well be, hope it is, but no one can say right now what the long term effects are. In "some" years time, we will have data and if it looks good, great, i'll take it. Right now, no chance. If other people want to be part of a widespread trial, thats good for them. They have a different view of risk.
Im not really interested in long covid, getting covid, feeling unwell etc. Thats all temporary and will likely pass (except a small number of cases maybe) and thats just life. Ive been ill before, and doubtless will be again. Im only concerned about dying or suffering permanently something which would change my life.
monkfish1 said:
I'll accept as time rolls on and the death numbers go up, the statistical chance of dying from covid has actually just got slightly worse (for me) than driving, but only just. Ive not stopped driving? Have you?
If I could cut my risk of dying or being seriously injured in an RTA by 95% by doing nothing more than having a jab in the arm and at worst feeling rough for a couple of days, I'd jump at it. Wouldn't you? Uggers said:
I posted this the other day about what the endgame is, how far we go? Be interested in peoples considered thoughts on this.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
This was directed at me and I'm happy to respondI'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
Uggers said:
Do you not think about what where this ends up?
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
Your point above is about cost rather than risk. If I read it correctly, you are putting aside any health risks or side effects of a vaccine and looking just at the cost practicalities and where the money can be spent?
This is a good point and one that should be considered.
The virus is not new but handling a pandemic is. I would like to see everyone jabbed for now to get the world turning again, with more research conducted regarding the virus and risk to different age groups, etc.
If appropriate, we could then look at administering boosters to vulnerable people only - much like the flu vaccine. However, I don't think we're in a position to make that call yet. The priority for the moment is to get the country (and the world) moving again.
Muzzer79 said:
Uggers said:
I posted this the other day about what the endgame is, how far we go? Be interested in peoples considered thoughts on this.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
This was directed at me and I'm happy to respondI'm not an anti-vaxxer I'm just very concerned as to the unintended future consequences of certain directions are.
Uggers said:
Do you not think about what where this ends up?
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
Don't quote me on the figures, but this is just as to use a as a broad example. But say the vaccine is 95% effective. So 95% of the old and vulnerable vaccinated are then 95% protected.
But to gain that extra 4-5% protection we need to vaccinate the other remaining percentage of the non vulnerable there is. So we are talking tens of millions (40 million+?) of vaccinations for increasingly diminishing returns don't you think?
Factor in variations and the talk of the vaccine not delivering long term protection. Potentially we could be needing to do 100's millions of vaccinations every year to cover the entire population on a rolling basis. The cost/infrastructure will be huge. Is this why we don't do everyone for the flu vaccine every year I don't know. But eventually cost has to be considered?
Someone born now could see potentially see 50+ vaccinations over their lifetine for something which no matter how they show it, has a high percentage of survival until you get into your later years.
Personally I'd like to see the vulnerable vaccinated, money IMO wasted on vaccinating the non vulnerable would be much better directed towards cancer research. That affects all age ranges and has truly horrific consequences for most of us in society.
Your point above is about cost rather than risk. If I read it correctly, you are putting aside any health risks or side effects of a vaccine and looking just at the cost practicalities and where the money can be spent?
This is a good point and one that should be considered.
The virus is not new but handling a pandemic is. I would like to see everyone jabbed for now to get the world turning again, with more research conducted regarding the virus and risk to different age groups, etc.
If appropriate, we could then look at administering boosters to vulnerable people only - much like the flu vaccine. However, I don't think we're in a position to make that call yet. The priority for the moment is to get the country (and the world) moving again.
Maybe I'm being unreal with 90%+ of the vulnerable vaccinated that we could get things moving again. Same case with the rest of the world.
Maybe there could be an argument that the vaccines we are going to give to the young fit and healthy here would be better used by getting the vulnerable elsewhere in the world vaccinated? We'd all mutually benefit. Or else we could find ourselves in the same situation as New Zealand in that we are perfectly fine, but isolated and need/relying on the rest of the world gets its act together.
It's a complicated subject, nothing is black and white. Which is why I try to entertain others reasons/thoughts. Maybe one day it will make sense to me then!
By constantly referring to your personal risk you're demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of how vaccination programs work.
It is not about your risk it is about the risk to everyone.
Some simple irrefutable facts;
It is not about your risk it is about the risk to everyone.
Some simple irrefutable facts;
- If you take these vaccines your risk of catching and spreading the virus are hugely lower.
- If you don't take the vaccine you increase your risk of spreading to others who may die.
- If you don't take the vaccine the virus will persist in the population longer and there will be higher numbers of mutations.
- These mutations could make the virus unrecognisable to those with immunity and trigger another wave of infection.
- These mutations could also be more deadly.
- Another wave of infection would be incredibly expensive and further curtail our personal freedoms.
- We need a high % uptake of the vaccine to ensure herd immunity is achieved.
- The scientifically validated personal risk to you from taking the vaccine is close to zero.
- Whether or not you understand any of these points doesn't mean they are not true.
Okay understood, we vaccinate the whole population and keep a rolling program of 100's millions of boosters and modified vaccines a year to keep it at bay.
All amongst a backdrop of mutations happening all over the world for the next how many years until they get herd immunity worldwide?
Any idea of cost?
All amongst a backdrop of mutations happening all over the world for the next how many years until they get herd immunity worldwide?
Any idea of cost?
V6 Pushfit said:
AlvinSultana said:
20.5m people vaccinated in this country alone.
Deaths zero.
Although we are all now sleepers waiting to be activated at the whim of our master Lord Gates.
Ignoring your error in reading the latest figures - what happened when the lockdown was ended too soon before Christmas? Deaths zero.
Although we are all now sleepers waiting to be activated at the whim of our master Lord Gates.
Edited by V6 Pushfit on Wednesday 3rd March 07:20
A) Which error in reading the figures are you referring to ?
My data was taken from here : https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinatio...
B) How is that relevant to Bill Gates being in control of the biggest sleeper botnet since the last great big sleeper botnet.
grumbledoak said:
AlvinSultana said:
20.5m people vaccinated in this country alone.
Deaths zero.
Not a single vaccinated person has died? Wow. And many of them were very old, too.Deaths zero.
Some people die after drinking water. Others die after writing pithy forum posts.
Evian needn't be concerned, and I am sure your wit will remain undiminished by the hand of the reaper. Praise the lord.
Prof Prolapse said:
By constantly referring to your personal risk you're demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of how vaccination programs work.
It is not about your risk it is about the risk to everyone.
Some simple irrefutable facts;
Wasn't the reason the 1918/198 pandemic was so deadly, was that the virus mutated such that it came back with a vengeance, and even those who had developed immunity in the first wave, fell in the second? It is not about your risk it is about the risk to everyone.
Some simple irrefutable facts;
- If you take these vaccines your risk of catching and spreading the virus are hugely lower.
- If you don't take the vaccine you increase your risk of spreading to others who may die.
- If you don't take the vaccine the virus will persist in the population longer and there will be higher numbers of mutations.
- These mutations could make the virus unrecognisable to those with immunity and trigger another wave of infection.
- These mutations could also be more deadly.
- Another wave of infection would be incredibly expensive and further curtail our personal freedoms.
- We need a high % uptake of the vaccine to ensure herd immunity is achieved.
- The scientifically validated personal risk to you from taking the vaccine is close to zero.
- Whether or not you understand any of these points doesn't mean they are not true.
I think one point that has been over looked and not properly messaged, is that a key part of lockdown etc is to dampen transmission rates and thus the ability of the virus to morph into something much more virulent.
It's not great now, but I would not like to see us enter into an incident pit, whereby we are fighting numerous forms of the virus and sliding ever deeper....
Uggers said:
Okay understood, we vaccinate the whole population and keep a rolling program of 100's millions of boosters and modified vaccines a year to keep it at bay.
All amongst a backdrop of mutations happening all over the world for the next how many years until they get herd immunity worldwide?
Any idea of cost?
I'm not sure of the relevance of the question. How does the ongoing global economic cost of vaccination effect you getting a vaccine at this moment? All amongst a backdrop of mutations happening all over the world for the next how many years until they get herd immunity worldwide?
Any idea of cost?
Are you suggesting you're somehow hoping to reduce national debt and be a martyr to the financial institutions by not taking your medicine?
It's impossible to predict cost at this point. But vaccination programs cost hugely less than the economic and human consequences of not implementing them. That's the whole point, and they do this very well.
Vaccines really aren't that expensive. In the first eight months of last year the UK borrowed an addition £188billion above par, this was allegedly due to the effects of the pandemic. Now, the Moderna jab costs ~£26, Oxford jab ~£3, Pfizer ~£15. So compared to just eight months of additional borrowing, our country alone could have vaccinated the entire world, for many years.
Again, vaccination programs make enormous economic sense.
Castrol for a knave said:
Wasn't the reason the 1918/198 pandemic was so deadly, was that the virus mutated such that it came back with a vengeance, and even those who had developed immunity in the first wave, fell in the second?
I think one point that has been over looked and not properly messaged, is that a key part of lockdown etc is to dampen transmission rates and thus the ability of the virus to morph into something much more virulent.
It's not great now, but I would not like to see us enter into an incident pit, whereby we are fighting numerous forms of the virus and sliding ever deeper....
I wouldn't know about the spread of infection. I would also think you need to be careful when drawing comparisons from that era.I think one point that has been over looked and not properly messaged, is that a key part of lockdown etc is to dampen transmission rates and thus the ability of the virus to morph into something much more virulent.
It's not great now, but I would not like to see us enter into an incident pit, whereby we are fighting numerous forms of the virus and sliding ever deeper....
Less about the spread and more the virus, my understanding was one of the reasons it was so deadly (and terrible for the economy) was because was believed to have caused a "cytokine storm", in otherwise healthy people. This is when the body effectively overreacts and effectively destroys itself trying to bring down the foreign antigen. So the most strong and economically viable people were removed from the population. It's also not helpful when your doctors and medical staff are the most likely to be killed off.
None of these factors appear to be the case with COVID though, for now it's picking off the weak and vulnerable. But even wild buffalo know that when predators do the same, it's best to stand as a united front, the large ones don't saunter off with a causal "see you chumps later", and then expose the weakest to die, I'm struggling to understand why so many here don't understand the same.
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm not sure of the relevance of the question. How does the ongoing global economic cost of vaccination effect you getting a vaccine at this moment?
Are you suggesting you're somehow hoping to reduce national debt and be a martyr to the financial institutions by not taking your medicine?
It's impossible to predict cost at this point. But vaccination programs cost hugely less than the economic and human consequences of not implementing them. That's the whole point, and they do this very well.
Vaccines really aren't that expensive. In the first eight months of last year the UK borrowed an addition £188billion above par, this was allegedly due to the effects of the pandemic. Now, the Moderna jab costs ~£26, Oxford jab ~£3, Pfizer ~£15. So compared to just eight months of additional borrowing, our country alone could have vaccinated the entire world, for many years.
Again, vaccination programs make enormous economic sense.
We decided that all the elderly and vulnerable should be vaccinated first as an order of priority domestically. Get the deaths down and open up the economy. Are you suggesting you're somehow hoping to reduce national debt and be a martyr to the financial institutions by not taking your medicine?
It's impossible to predict cost at this point. But vaccination programs cost hugely less than the economic and human consequences of not implementing them. That's the whole point, and they do this very well.
Vaccines really aren't that expensive. In the first eight months of last year the UK borrowed an addition £188billion above par, this was allegedly due to the effects of the pandemic. Now, the Moderna jab costs ~£26, Oxford jab ~£3, Pfizer ~£15. So compared to just eight months of additional borrowing, our country alone could have vaccinated the entire world, for many years.
Again, vaccination programs make enormous economic sense.
But that approach doesn't work on a worldwide scale?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff