Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?

[anonymous-user]

sutoka said:

Friend was telling me they were at the vaccination centre to get their first prick, they had just had it and was sent to sit down for 10-15 minutes. Young lad across from her appeared to full asleep and when one of the nurses checked he'd gone into a cardiac arrest at which point it's action stations and a defibrillator used and he's back and wheeled out to a waiting ambulance.

Now either it's a complete coincidence or else the vaccine triggered something in this young lad. First I've heard of this happening but I suppose side effects are severely under reported so must be others.

Do people fall asleep having a heart attack? Dunno but the whole ‘I heard it from a friend’ thing is so doubtful anyway.

[grumbledoak]

coldel said:

Fundamentally a lack of understanding and a belief in hearsay is always at the base of these anti vaxxers type debates, you are right nothing will convince this guy otherwise, even if a million subject experts stood there with a million pages of empirical evidence.

COVID19 vaccine is not a completely new vaccine, its a learning on top of all the other COVID vaccines we already have, if you have the flu jab each year you are taking a new version of the flu vaccine each year, and people have side effects to it.

Which "COVID19" vaccine are you referring to, please, and which "other COVID vaccines" is it learning on top of?

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

coldel said:

Fundamentally a lack of understanding and a belief in hearsay is always at the base of these anti vaxxers type debates, you are right nothing will convince this guy otherwise, even if a million subject experts stood there with a million pages of empirical evidence.

COVID19 vaccine is not a completely new vaccine, its a learning on top of all the other COVID vaccines we already have, if you have the flu jab each year you are taking a new version of the flu vaccine each year, and people have side effects to it.

Which "COVID19" vaccine are you referring to, please, and which "other COVID vaccines" is it learning on top of?

He’s already answered that

[gregs656]

V6 Pushfit said:

Do people fall asleep having a heart attack? Dunno but the whole ‘I heard it from a friend’ thing is so doubtful anyway.

I've only ever witnessed one cardiac arrest but the person collapsed in their chair (like you might if you fell asleep) and had agonal breathing, so could be confused with being asleep.

edit: I don't want to give the impression I think this guy went into cardiac arrest from a vaccine, because I don't, but that part of it does check out in my very limited experience.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Prof Prolapse said:

It is not true that any manufacturer is absolved of any liability. They are liable for the products they produce, but all medicines have side effects, and all claims must be proven.

It is true that they are absolved of liability, but there are very good reasons for it.

If any anti vaxxer is remotely interested (which they probably aren't, the facts are a bit of inconvenience to the likes them), vaccine liability insurance is rated on 3 factors:

1. The number of doses being made (this is you exposure to risk, like then asking how many miles you drive on car insurance )
2. Where will it be used (compensation payments are higher in North America ands parts of the Arab world than in the UK or Europe)
3. Your previous history and claims record (no claims bonus if you like.)

So if you're developing a vaccine for some fever that you only have to have if you're going to travel to S. E. Asia, you can say we're making 10K doses for use in the UK or maybe the UK and some other European countries. The insurance co work out the premium and you pay it.

The covid vaccine, your making hundreds of millions of doses, being sold to govts who then can sell it on or share it. So no idea if it's going to end up in North America, the UAE, or not.

No insurance company can cover that risk. Even a tiny % of claims could mean millions of claims. And even false claims need to be defended and rebutted, and cost insurers money.

So very early on vaccine insurers made it clear they would not be providing insurance for a vaccine which eventually will be offered to 7bn people. There's no point, as in the event of an issue, they couldn't afford pay the claims. Unless they charged billions in premiums that the pharma firms can't afford.

The makers of the vaccine can't take the risk themselves, as any claims could ruin them. They have a duty to shareholders etc. So from the outset, if we wanted a vaccine, the only solution was an immunity from claims. It's got nothing to do with doubts over the safety of the vaccine, it's just the only possible way forward.

[Scabutz]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It is not true that any manufacturer is absolved of any liability. They are liable for the products they produce, but all medicines have side effects, and all claims must be proven.

It is true that they are absolved of liability, but there are very good reasons for it.

If any anti vaxxer is remotely interested (which they probably aren't, the facts are a bit of inconvenience to the likes them), vaccine liability insurance is rated on 3 factors:

1. The number of doses being made (this is you exposure to risk, like then asking how many miles you drive on car insurance )
2. Where will it be used (compensation payments are higher in North America ands parts of the Arab world than in the UK or Europe)
3. Your previous history and claims record (no claims bonus if you like.)

So if you're developing a vaccine for some fever that you only have to have if you're going to travel to S. E. Asia, you can say we're making 10K doses for use in the UK or maybe the UK and some other European countries. The insurance co work out the premium and you pay it.

The covid vaccine, your making hundreds of millions of doses, being sold to govts who then can sell it on or share it. So no idea if it's going to end up in North America, the UAE, or not.

No insurance company can cover that risk. Even a tiny % of claims could mean millions of claims. And even false claims need to be defended and rebutted, and cost insurers money.

So very early on vaccine insurers made it clear they would not be providing insurance for a vaccine which eventually will be offered to 7bn people. There's no point, as in the event of an issue, they couldn't afford pay the claims. Unless they charged billions in premiums that the pharma firms can't afford.

The makers of the vaccine can't take the risk themselves, as any claims could ruin them. They have a duty to shareholders etc. So from the outset, if we wanted a vaccine, the only solution was an immunity from claims. It's got nothing to do with doubts over the safety of the vaccine, it's just the only possible way forward.

Thank for this. My nobber mate has been posting about the no liability stuff and I knew there was a reason for it but wasn't sure what it was, you've explained it perfectly. If you don't mind I will use your words to go tear him a new one.

[Sahjahd]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It is not true that any manufacturer is absolved of any liability. They are liable for the products they produce, but all medicines have side effects, and all claims must be proven.

It is true that they are absolved of liability, but there are very good reasons for it.


The makers of the vaccine can't take the risk themselves, as any claims could ruin them. They have a duty to shareholders etc. So from the outset, if we wanted a vaccine, the only solution was an immunity from claims. It's got nothing to do with doubts over the safety of the vaccine, it's just the only possible way forward.

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

[Munter]

Sahjahd said:

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

There's always doubt and therefore insurance on everything. The dye in your clothes, the clothes, the phone or computer you are using, everything is assumed to potentially be able to harm you. I presume you accept all that.

Or you're naked, living outside, and consuming only what grows naturally on your own land, while shouting your posts to the nearest computer user?

Or far more likely, just trolling.

[anonymous-user]

Sahjahd said:

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

Otherwise out of billions of doses there will still be thousands of nutters with another agenda or with comorbidities who would see manufacturers as a target for a claim for whatever spurious reason and it would then lead to almighty problems due to the numbers involved. Currently it’s millions of lives that are being saved by the vaccine so anything to cut through the crap is fine with me.
As we see it globally it is the vaccines and ongoing research that are slowing the virus and preventing a global catastrophe and the various individual tales of side effects seem the happen to ‘a friend of a friend’ so are anecdotal only.

[Sahjahd]

Munter said:

Sahjahd said:

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

There's always doubt and therefore insurance on everything. The dye in your clothes, the clothes, the phone or computer you are using, everything is assumed to potentially be able to harm you. I presume you accept all that.

Or you're naked, living outside, and consuming only what grows naturally on your own land, while shouting your posts to the nearest computer user?

Or far more likely, just trolling.

Neither shouting, nor trolling.
I accept all the normal risks of life, including that a virus may kill me. What I won't accept is taking an entirely unnecessary, relatively ineffective, and inadequately tested drug, especially one from which its manufacturer is absolved even of negligence claims.

[anonymous-user]

Sahjahd said:

Neither shouting, nor trolling.
I accept all the normal risks of life, including that a virus may kill me. What I won't accept is taking an entirely unnecessary, relatively ineffective, and inadequately tested drug, especially one from which its manufacturer is absolved even of negligence claims.

Describing the vaccine as ‘unnecessary, relatively ineffective and inadequately tested’ puts you in a parallel to reality.

[Munter]

Sahjahd said:

Neither shouting, nor trolling.
I accept all the normal risks of life,

Great. So you're happy with the vaccine. Case closed.

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

Sahjahd said:

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

Jesus wept

[coldel]

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:

Sahjahd said:

If there is no doubt about the safety of the vaccine, why is the only way forward for manufacturers to be absolved from any associated liability?
As for a duty to shareholders, doesn't their duty to users of their product trump that?
If a manufacturer's product is so defective that it causes sufficient harm to its users for negligence claims to ruin them, then they should be ruined.

Jesus wept

I know, it is this exact sort of post which shows the futility of reasoned comment with anti-vaxers because they fail to engage with any learning that comes their way out of pure misguided fear based on hearsay, youtube and religion.

[liner33]

I blame Facebook more than youtube , I've had 3 so called medical professionals discuss the issues with the vaccine come up in my feed .

A friend of my mums who is in her mid 70's and with health issues refused the vaccine because of the "information" she had read on Facebook.

[robuk]

liner33 said:

I blame Facebook more than youtube , I've had 3 so called medical professionals discuss the issues with the vaccine come up in my feed .

A friend of my mums who is in her mid 70's and with health issues refused the vaccine because of the "information" she had read on Facebook.

Kids playing video games was meant to fk up society.

The reality is it is middle aged and older people chomping up all sorts of ste on Facebook and basically being radicalised - be it on vax, cable ties on lampposts etc etc

[Munter]

robuk said:

The reality is it is middle aged and older people chomping up all sorts of ste on Facebook and basically being radicalised - be it on vax, cable ties on lampposts etc etc

You mean. Thick people. People who have got through life unable to process information and been protected by the systems society puts in place.

I'd be interested to know what grades some of these people got in Science GCSEs/O Levels. I'm guessing quite low. Yet they didn't take that as a hint that they clearly can't work with this sort of information. (Presumably the education system was a conspiracy against them)

[coldel]

liner33 said:

I blame Facebook more than youtube , I've had 3 so called medical professionals discuss the issues with the vaccine come up in my feed .

A friend of my mums who is in her mid 70's and with health issues refused the vaccine because of the "information" she had read on Facebook.

It was about this time last year people were sharing images on FB of a post by a 'Japanese Doctor' who said drinking water washed the virus away, and people actually believed it.

[Castrol for a knave]

I wouldn't let some random fly my Airbus to Malaga, so I won't take advice from people with a degree in Virology from the University of Facebook.

[ChocolateFrog]

I've gone backwards and forwards with it trying to weigh up my options.

I've just booked my jab. I think what swayed it for me was the fact I can choose not to have the Astra vaccine.

As someone in my 30's with no underlying health conditions and having had Covid already a blood clot from the vaccine is more of a threat to me than Covid is, unless someone wants to counter that assertion?

That and the fact the government is intent on making normal life as difficult as possible for those choosing not to have the vaccine.

My other half is pregnant and won't be having the jab and my 1 year old won't be having it either.