Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
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.
The state of this, jesus, even after Twig very patiently explained everything.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.
You might as well go back to the wibble thread, you clearly don't want to listen.
Tankrizzo said:
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.
The state of this, jesus, even after Twig very patiently explained everything.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.
You might as well go back to the wibble thread, you clearly don't want to listen.
Tankrizzo said:
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.
The state of this, jesus, even after Twig very patiently explained everything.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.
You might as well go back to the wibble thread, you clearly don't want to listen.
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.
Make your mind up. 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.
I expect you accept the chance of going under a bus, but you still look left and right before crossing the road.
ChocolateFrog said:
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.
Your risk of developing a clot is effectively zero (I did the maths on here a few weeks ago to try illustrate how low it is). Your risk of dying of said clot, is even lower. There's also compounding factors which skew the data at the moment towards the highest risk, reality is that it's even safer than it appears.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.
In the absence of the ability to force individuals to take medical treatment, the government is absolutely correct to pile social pressure on individuals who refuse the vaccine. You have a social responsibility to do so, and one to your family as well.
As long as you're taking a vaccine you're meeting that obligation, and fair play to you.
As for the O-AZ vaccine, I'm in my 30's, and I'll be taking my second dose next week. I will check the data again when it comes the time, but I currently have no issues with any of my children taking it (4 months, 5 years, 6 years, 10 years).
The risk of the vaccine is absolutely (and significantly) lower than the risks presented by COVID-19 for our/your age bracket. That is precisely the calculation required to allow the vaccine to be administered.
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Prof Prolapse said:
the government is absolutely correct to pile social pressure on individuals who refuse the vaccine. You have a social responsibility to do so, and one to your family as well.
As long as you're taking a vaccine you're meeting that obligation, and fair play to you.
Did I really read this? As long as you're taking a vaccine you're meeting that obligation, and fair play to you.
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Looks like you had better stop driving then I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
V6 Pushfit said:
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Looks like you had better stop driving then I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Using stairs
Taking baths or showers
Using the train
ChocolateFrog said:
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Ultimately: Because morons are allowed to vote. So you have to pander to them when you can. In this case, they can. It might well be that the better option is to euthanise the morons and remove them from society...but...there's some negative connotations with that plan. So we go with this one.Along with, There is a slightly better option so might as well go with that, where practical.
If there was just the OAZ vaccine, that would still be effective, and far safer than so many things we do on a day to day basis as to not be worth worrying about. But there is an option, so why not use it where the teeny tiny risk can be reduced to a teesny teeny tiny risk. But where it's already a teesny teeny tiny risk, use either.
Captain Raymond Holt said:
V6 Pushfit said:
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Looks like you had better stop driving then I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Using stairs
Taking baths or showers
Using the train
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
The risk of thrombolytic events is cited as 10.5 in 1 million. For ease of maths I would say that translations to 1 in 100,000. It is highly relevant to point out it is largely the elderly and those with underlying health issues who have been dosed, and that these are adverse events, not "adverse reactions", are likely to be disproportionately higher in those groups. As a comparision the risk of blood clots whilst taking the contraception pill is approximately 1 in 1,000 in risk, that is a medication that does carry stricter prescription guidelines, but is given to children, despite being a hundred times more dangerous.I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
The risk of being killed by falling donkey is never zero, it however does remain "effectively" zero as it seldom is involved in our decision making processes, I am arguing the the same is true here. The risk here is 0.001% of having a thrombolytic event, as I have tried to point out this is highly likely an overestimate due to the fact those with underlying health conditions and older groups are dosed first . The risk of dying however if you have an event, is considerably lower still. I've seen it cited in some tabloids as 0.00018% but I've not seen the source for this. If true, and it is plausible, that is not just "effectively zero", it is all but mathematically zero.
The JVCI guidance on 7 May 21, was that patients aged 30-39 should be given the preference if (1) it is available and (2) it does not delay dosing (3) they haven't already had their first dose of the OAZ vaccine. At no point in the issued guidance was there a description of increased risk. At no point does it say not to give under 40s the vaccine. You can read this yourself here;
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-advises-on...
As I have said my second dose is next week. If the 0.00018% risk of death from clots is correct I have more chance of dying whilst travelling to my appointment. If however I was to die of a thrombolytic event, I would expect my partner to correctly tell my children that I died of a freak accident, and I would be safe in the knowledge I died without being an ignoramus, and without shirking my responsibilities to establish the vaccination programme.
In fact I think we all deserve medals. With BoJo's big stupid face on them in his freshly decorated flat.
Captain Raymond Holt said:
V6 Pushfit said:
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Looks like you had better stop driving then I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Using stairs
Taking baths or showers
Using the train
I can't imagine someone having to tell my kids that their dad died from being hit by a meteor because he didn't spend his days hiding under a table
Captain Raymond Holt said:
V6 Pushfit said:
ChocolateFrog said:
It seems that around 1 in 800000 have died with a blood clot after having the Astra vaccine and those deaths are not predominantly people in their 80's.
I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Looks like you had better stop driving then I know the risk is minuscule but it's not zero.
I just can't imagine someone having to tell my kids their dad died of a blood clot from a vaccine he only really had because it was "the socially responsible thing to do".
Almost certainly won't happen, but it's happened to some people. Irrational probably but that's my thinking.
If the risk is effectively zero why is government advice to offer other jabs to the under 40's? as that does not portray confidence and reassurance to me.
Using stairs
Taking baths or showers
Using the train
Munter said:
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)
The vocal anti vax person on my Facebook was one of the brightest people in my school year and went on to do further education in the sciences. Early 30s. 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)
Mad.
Sahjahd said:
Tankrizzo said:
The state of this, jesus, even after Twig very patiently explained everything.
You might as well go back to the wibble thread, you clearly don't want to listen.
Are you seriously suggesting that as individuals we should all accept uninsurable risks? I wish you well.You might as well go back to the wibble thread, you clearly don't want to listen.
It's a conspiracy.
Not someone I know, but:
Last weekend met my other half in the market, as she stood up had an odd look so I asked why. The woman talking behind her had said to her friends "I can't have the vaccine, because then I won't be able to ascend, and I can't tell anyone at work because they will think I am mad."
Well, yes, that is because you are.
Last weekend met my other half in the market, as she stood up had an odd look so I asked why. The woman talking behind her had said to her friends "I can't have the vaccine, because then I won't be able to ascend, and I can't tell anyone at work because they will think I am mad."
Well, yes, that is because you are.
David_M said:
Not someone I know, but:
Last weekend met my other half in the market, as she stood up had an odd look so I asked why. The woman talking behind her had said to her friends "I can't have the vaccine, because then I won't be able to ascend, and I can't tell anyone at work because they will think I am mad."
Well, yes, that is because you are.
She couldn't use the escalator? Is that because she would be closer to the 5G transmitters..Last weekend met my other half in the market, as she stood up had an odd look so I asked why. The woman talking behind her had said to her friends "I can't have the vaccine, because then I won't be able to ascend, and I can't tell anyone at work because they will think I am mad."
Well, yes, that is because you are.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff