I’m fed up with people not liking vaccine mandates

Post Reply New Topic

I thought that this would be worth sharing since it was found out last night that Bob Saget had died after hitting his head. Long before anyone knew the true cause of death, this b***h thought it would be good to feed the anti vaxxers further validation that not getting vaccinated is the best thing for them.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-o ... gets-death

nobody in my family is vaxxed, we simply dont see point. omicron is more or less flu, I do not take flu vaccine, so I dont see reason why got vaxxed against covid.
as for refusing vaccine- there could be pleenty of reasons why.
first, mRNA technology so far did not produced mass produced vaccine.
plus, its highly suspicious how FDA and Pfizer fight teeths and nails against publication of test datas.
they could release datas loong time ago and hammer all anti vaxxer arguments with them.
curiously, they did not.
as for mandates - they re useless.
vaxxed person can catch and trasmit Covid as well as unvaxxed, therefore mandate them as protection against covid is illogical.
datas from Israel, Denmark and other highly vaxxed countries strongly suggest ADE, what is quite nasty thing.
plus, if even health profesionals refuse to get vaxxed, its higly suspicious.
not mentioning all the lies and obfuscations connected with Covid.

The necessary time to complete proper safety trials was simply not available. How do they know there are no adverse reactions over a 5 or 10 year time period post vaccine if all they had was 1 year. The ridiculous thing is, we know better. We have very strict assessment for drugs because of events like the Thalidomide disaster. It took five years before a link was made between all those deformed children and that drug.



Indeed, but we won't know the results for some years.



Debatable. Confirmed reinfection after recovery is extraordinarily rare. So rare that it is difficult to study natural immunity vs natural immunity + vaccine.



Science is not a democracy. The crushing weight of popular and fashionable opinion has no bearing on Truth. You should know this if you have any scientific training. They tell the story of Galileo and the Catholic Church over and over for good reason.

Find some time and watch this video before we re-engage on this topic. It's a walkthrough of Pfizer's own data and bad practices (no joke - they unblinded the trial early). Then metaphorically look me in the eye and say you have absolutely no concerns about the long term or even short term safety of the Pfizer jab. You do not need any special knowledge to understand what is presented there.

It is not typical or proper for Phase I trials to follow subjects for 5-10 years. COVID vaccines were subject to the same rigour as any other drug. They received some permission to run different phases of trials and regulatory approvals in parallel, which condensed the timeframe without sacrificing the rigour of the process. If someone volunteered for a phase II trial then they were taking a bigger risk than normal, but patients were not.
[quote=“Mikah”]


Indeed, but we won't know the results for some years.[/quote]
We know the results now. Huge reduction in deaths, mild side effect profile.

It isn’t credible to suggest that a new set of side effects will emerge in five years.



Debatable. Confirmed reinfection after recovery is extraordinarily rare. So rare that it is difficult to study natural immunity vs natural immunity + vaccine.
[/quote]
This was true 18 months ago. It isn’t true now.


Science is not a democracy. The crushing weight of popular and fashionable opinion has no bearing on Truth. You should know this if you have any scientific training. They tell the story of Galileo and the Catholic Church over and over for good reason.[/quote]
You don’t get to claim that everyone who looks into this agrees with you with one breath, and then turn around and say science is not a democracy and you are Galileo with the next.

Galileo had evidence on his side. You do not.

I have already lost this post twice while trying to get cool graphs to point at (couldn’t find anything that was recent and embeddable, but the stuff Google’s COVID stats dashboard pulls up gets the point across - vaccines have broken the link between cases and deaths), so forgive me, I will submit this before viewing. However, there is nothing alarming about unblinding a trial. It is standard practice when the benefits of one treatment over another are obvious - it would be unethical to deny some people medicine that you know works.

does your family primarily watch Fox News?

Alright, video:

- Video starts by suggesting absolute risk reduction is a better measure of a vaccine’s efficacy than relative risk reduction. Which, LOL. No s**t, lots of people don’t get COVID in a two month period - but 95% of those who would have, didn’t if they were vaccinated. Are these people suggesting vaccines become more effective when the disease is more common? RRR is the appropriate stat for vaccine efficacy. There may be other treatments where ARR is more appropriate, particularly things sold directly to consumers.

- As noted above, unblinding early was a moral obligation. You don’t leave people unvaccinated once you know the vaccine works.

- they claim the vaccine shows an increase in “illness”. This is disingenuous as it equates having to take a few paracetamol to deal with a headache to getting coronavirus. It is clear that the number of people hospitalised from vaccine side effects is very low, and only slightly higher than placebo (I’m not sure the difference is even statistically significant).

- just lol at comparing the number of people who died within 6 months of being vaccinated with the number of people who died in 2 months of taking placebo. On the like-for-like comparison, it is 15 deaths vs 14 deaths, which isn’t statistically significant. They claim this is “tier 1 evidence” and “proves that the vaccine causes harm, including death”.

Forgive me, I am 8 minutes in and there are already so many basic errors. Completely failing to do any statistical testing to support their claims is the most egregious. This video is intellectual dishonest, inconsistent in whether it prefers relative or absolute risk reduction, and completely statistically illiterate. I do not see any benefit in continuing to watch.

One or two of the things I have said draw upon my degree in biology, but most of it is stuff that A Level biologists would be expected to pick up upon if this was an exam question, including the key points about statistical testing.

Is that the best the anti-vaccine lobby can do? Because if so, forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

I had a reply ready to go, then you reply dangit. Keep watching. Just one thing:

This is not one of those cases. There are sometimes moral and ethical reasons to unblind - usually for extremely aggressive diseases that are invariably fatal. We don't yet know if there are potentially extremely harmful side effects, but since these (placebo) people will most likely die and the initial results are promising... - that is a good ethical case for unblinding.

Covid just isn't this kind of scenario. Most of the cohort are young and healthy (another problem with the study). Their chances of survival and recovery are extremely high. To unblind in this instance is SO stupid and unwarranted, I can understand those who believe it was done for sinister reasons.

all those trucks have to do is get vaccinated and problem solved. Why is that so hard for anti-mandate people to see?

You are aware that around 90% of them already are (much higher than the overall vaccination rate across Canada), aren't you?

I see. you're not getting it either.
If your way to avoid a disease is getting the disease, you have failed at avoiding it.

I find it quite fascinating that this needs to be spelled out.

Well, you'll probably not appreciate this recent study:

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2821%2900768-4/fulltext

I do understand that vaccines merely reduce morbity and mortality, and not infection per se.

but getting a disease to avoid getting it is still oxymoronic.

As it taking a "vaccine" designed to artificially protect against a virus when you have already suffered from the virus and acquired natural protection from that same virus, wouldn't you say?

I also didn't see anyone (except yourself) in this thread claiming anyone was trying to "get a disease" - the discussion seemed to be about those who had already (previously) had the disease.

Darwin Awards to the rescue!


From darwinawards.com: Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way. They are self-selected examples of the dangers inherent in a lack of common sense, and all human races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible to compete. Actual winners must meet the following criteria:

Reproduction
Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.
Excellence
Astounding misapplication of judgment.
Self-Selection
Cause one's own demise.
Maturity
Capable of sound judgment.
Veracity
The event must be true.

I think age does not officially matter; it's the (lack of) thought that counts, as well as the fact they've improved human society by removing themselves from it. A similar accommodation (honorable mentions) is made for people who somehow dodged certain death, against all possible odds--could we call it dumb luck?

Since killing others disqualifies a potential nominee officially, I'd like to propose a new category, dedicated to anti-vaxxers: Darwin's A-hole. All the doctors and public figures who spread lies and then die of covid (there's a surprising number of them!) get a Darwin's Big Fat A-hole trophy propped against their tombstone.

Correlation does not imply causation. I saw nothing in the video explaining what caused her to faint, specifically no proof that that vaccine injury caused her to faint and no proof that breakthrough Covid caused her to faint.