Two Passengers On Fully Vaccinated Cruise Ship Test Positive

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223
Location: Tulsa, OK

23 Jun 2021, 8:16 am

lostproperty wrote:
Not everybody who gets vaccinated will be protected. A percentage of people who have had both jabs have been shown to have no immunity (I heard an NHS doctor give a figure of 10%-20% on a podcast I listened to last week). It's a complicated process that works in stages, rather like a moon mission where the rocket separates bit by bit, everything has to work perfectly otherwise the mission fails (no protection) or you get varying degrees of side effects (from mild to severe in the short term, unknown long term).

That is just my point. What are the long term effects?
This vaccine was rushed into production and rushed to distribution. Then government officials are pressuring the population to get vaccinated.
Its kind of like when you're being pressured into buying a car and the salesman wants you to just trust him. We know the government lies. We know that even FDA approved drugs get recalled. We know that the vaccine manufacturers have been given immunity from lawsuits. What we don't know are the long term effects of the vaccine. Given this I don't see hesitancy as irrational.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,282

25 Jul 2021, 8:20 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Live in fear if that is your wish. I choose not to.

If it must be seen as living in fear, why do you think you're not living in fear also? Fear of the vaccine, in your case.



Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223
Location: Tulsa, OK

27 Jul 2021, 11:24 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
Live in fear if that is your wish. I choose not to.

If it must be seen as living in fear, why do you think you're not living in fear also? Fear of the vaccine, in your case.

No. Not fear. Skepticism.
Why trust the government with an non-FDA approved vaccine that we know nothing about the long term effects?



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,282

27 Jul 2021, 12:38 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
No. Not fear. Skepticism.
Why trust the government with an non-FDA approved vaccine that we know nothing about the long term effects?

Roughly speaking, the choice is between the risk of harm from Covid and the risk of harm from the vaccine. Either choice could be called skepticism, or fear, of the alternative choice. I'm skeptical (or afraid) of the idea of walking around unvaccinated, you're skeptical (or afraid) of the idea of being vaccinated. Since we can't read minds, we don't know whether it's fear or skepticism that motivates people. We can try to make those who choose the option we didn't choose look silly by calling them fearful, and we can try to make ourselves look smart by calling ourselves skeptical, but I doubt that kind of trick works very often, except maybe as a bit of reinforcing confirmational bias when preaching to the converted.

But if you're worried (sorry, skeptical) about a vaccine side effect happening years after being jabbed, this web page might give you a bit more information. It seems fairly level-headed and unbiased, in that they talk about the side effects that have been seen from vaccines through history, and they don't claim that a longterm side effect is impossible, just that there's no known reason to think there would be one.

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-sid ... 19-vaccine

If you want to be safe from unexpected longterm side effects of things in general, there are many things you might do well to avoid - processed foods of any kind, any foods that aren't 100% organic (even then you've only got the word of the certification system that it's really pesticide-free etc. - sometimes mistakes are made, e.g. the Linda McCartney food was once found to contain GM, so we might be wise to play it safe and grow our own food in a dome with air filters), and watch out for medicines and household products - basically anything that hasn't been thoroughly time-tested for about 100 years or more could carry a risk. Then there's clothing - those dyes and fabric treatments they do might turn out to be dangerous.



Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223
Location: Tulsa, OK

28 Jul 2021, 8:16 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
No. Not fear. Skepticism.
Why trust the government with an non-FDA approved vaccine that we know nothing about the long term effects?

Roughly speaking, the choice is between the risk of harm from Covid and the risk of harm from the vaccine. Either choice could be called skepticism, or fear, of the alternative choice. I'm skeptical (or afraid) of the idea of walking around unvaccinated, you're skeptical (or afraid) of the idea of being vaccinated. Since we can't read minds, we don't know whether it's fear or skepticism that motivates people. We can try to make those who choose the option we didn't choose look silly by calling them fearful, and we can try to make ourselves look smart by calling ourselves skeptical, but I doubt that kind of trick works very often, except maybe as a bit of reinforcing confirmational bias when preaching to the converted.

But if you're worried (sorry, skeptical) about a vaccine side effect happening years after being jabbed, this web page might give you a bit more information. It seems fairly level-headed and unbiased, in that they talk about the side effects that have been seen from vaccines through history, and they don't claim that a longterm side effect is impossible, just that there's no known reason to think there would be one.

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-sid ... 19-vaccine

If you want to be safe from unexpected longterm side effects of things in general, there are many things you might do well to avoid - processed foods of any kind, any foods that aren't 100% organic (even then you've only got the word of the certification system that it's really pesticide-free etc. - sometimes mistakes are made, e.g. the Linda McCartney food was once found to contain GM, so we might be wise to play it safe and grow our own food in a dome with air filters), and watch out for medicines and household products - basically anything that hasn't been thoroughly time-tested for about 100 years or more could carry a risk. Then there's clothing - those dyes and fabric treatments they do might turn out to be dangerous.

Risk aversion is not irrational. But pure risk is irrational. There is a big difference between the risks of daily life and the risk of a rushed, non-FDA approved jab that the government is all too eager for you to get. You have great faith in government to do the right thing. Government has used "vaccines" for ill intent before. Just ask the black community of Tuskegee.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,282

28 Jul 2021, 10:43 am

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Risk aversion is not irrational. But pure risk is irrational. There is a big difference between the risks of daily life and the risk of a rushed, non-FDA approved jab that the government is all too eager for you to get. You have great faith in government to do the right thing. Government has used "vaccines" for ill intent before. Just ask the black community of Tuskegee.

On the contrary, I'm well aware that politicians are dishonest. I think there is a real risk inherent in untested vaccines, and that can be seen clearly in the J&J and AZ vaccines that cause very dangerous blood clots and sometimes death in a small number of recipients. In the UK, the advice was still to get the AZ if offered it, and the grounds given were that "the key question is, which is the greater risk, Covid or AZ? Obviously it's Covid, so you should accept AZ."

But is that the key question? To my mind, a more salient question is "which is the greater risk, AZ or Pfizer?" But that might have led to people rejecting AZ and pushing for Pfizer, and the gov had a bucketful of AZ that they didn't want to throw away. They'd also rather backed AZ, with Boris declaring it to be an example of glorious British science (presumably part of his Brexit rhetoric that pitches Britain as a superior race who is achieving great things now he's delivered us from European captivity - trashing AZ would have knocked a hole in that lie).

The oversimplified "Covid-or-AZ" question also doesn't allow for the likely difference in the degree of social mixing between a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person. If you're unvaccinated, you know you're relatively unprotected so you're likely to avoid potentially infected people. If you do that carefully enough, rejecting AZ makes no difference at all to your risk of catching the virus.

I think the problem is that governments, and health professionals to a degree, tend to see issues from their own point of view like that, and not the individual's. Fauci and the WHO pretty much admitted they falsely claimed masks were useless because they didn't want people snapping up the scarce supplies when the health workers needed them. So I think we have to bear this hidden agenda in mind whenever we look at government advice, and health professionals sometimes aren't much better. A good GP may in contrast see the question from the patient's perspective, in as far as there is a good GP who can stand up to pressure from whoever pushes him around from above. My wife's GP advised her to get the Pfizer instead of Moderna because it has a better track record for allergic reactions, because she told him (with good reason) that she was concerned about that.

I don't think the risks of daily life are known to be less than the risks of a government-sponsored vaccine. Not in terms of the probability of death or harm. I think the harm from the gov being disingenuous about Covid vaccines advice is small. Ultimately the exact risks of being jabbed or not being jabbed are to a degree imponderable. It depends on many factors - your individual vulnerability to the disease and to the side effects of the vaccine, which vaccine you get, how well it works on you, the prevalence of the virus in your local community, which variants are at large, how much social interaction you have, the ventilation systems of buildings, strength of outdoor sunlight, care in handwashing, etc. I think it's silly to claim that having the vaccine is invariably an act of madness.