To not understand the vaccine drama

[Lei8133]

I am so confused by all this anti-vaxxer hate and mandating the COVID vaccine for certain professions extra. IMO if you have had the vaccine (which I have, well I’m awaiting my 2nd dose) surely people who haven’t had the jab pose no increased threat to us. The only people they cause harm to are fellow anti-vaxxers and other unvaccinated people for whom the risk is always present.

Surely whether we like it or not it is a personal choice whether you receive the vaccine or not and the freedom of choice is something we should all advocate for whether we agree with the decision or not surely?!? I just don’t get it and the divide it is causes amongst friends, family and the greater society is saddening. AIBU?!?! If so can someone explain to me how unvaccinated relatives and friends are potentially harmful to me despite having received the jab?

Not ‘are said to’ (by antivaxxers)

@Lei8133 - I think it goes back to what I was trying to debate before, can you compare wanting to live your life without interference of medicine etc, the most natural form of living as risky as choosing to drive a car?!? Does society get to set the parameters for what’s acceptable?!? Maybe. Maybe not.

What it boils down to us what type of society we want to live in. Do we want a society where everyone lives as they want without regard for the impact on others or do we want a society that has rules and norms that are for the good of society as a whole? The smoking ban is an excellent example of that. The rules limit where you can smoke but there are additional societal norms and expectations on what is acceptable. So while you may be allowed smoke outdoors, most people would not sit down beside a small child and blow smoke at them.

We currently have rules regarding vaccines. If you want to travel to certain paces, you need a yellow fever vaccine. If you want to work in health care you must have had a mmr and a hepatitis vaccine. You can add the covid vaccine as a societal expectation in the same way as we have expectations regarding smoking etc.

*The trouble is that because of delta, the herd immunity threshold is much higher. If we’d not imported delta (thanks to the stunningly bad priorities of the government at the time) we’d probably be pretty close to herd immunity levels by now. Instead it’s going to be quite a lot longer and take quite a lot more people.

I took the vaccine because yes, I don’t want Covid, yes, I want an end to this shit show, yes, I want to see my family abroad again some time before 2025, but also because vaccination is the best way to prevent variants.

The thought of a vaccine-evading mutation arising in my body if I were infected with Covid is pretty awful in terms of the suffering and problems it would cause. But mutations happen.

If a vaccine-evading variant, or one with a higher mortality rate, or one that causes serious illness arose due to me getting Covid and I could have massively reduced my risk of getting it, and then reduced the severity if I did get it - well, to me the thought of that is shattering.

Variants only happen if the virus is replicating. Every extra replication - whether in a new host or caused my more severe disease - is an extra chance for mutation.

I can understand those who are hesitant about the vaccine (though not those who spread misinformation) but I have zero time for those who refuse the vaccine but simultaneously profess to be terrified of new variants and demand everyone but themselves take steps to prevent them entering the UK.*

This exactly ^

No source for the thousands of vaccine related deaths then? Thought not.

@Alongwayfromeverything Woah B I’ve not actually looked at this stuff before. Obviously the occurrences etc are minimal it’s just awful reading lol - check it out.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 310 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through June 14, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.

fullfact.org/online/1102-vaccine-adr-death/

People die all the time. That death rate is what you would expect in the absence of vaccines, or indeed covid. Where is the proven link between vaccine and ‘thousands of deaths’, aside from the absolutely tiny chance of blood clot issues?

[quote Lei8133]@Alongwayfromeverything Woah B I’ve not actually looked at this stuff before. Obviously the occurrences etc are minimal it’s just awful reading lol - check it out.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 310 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through June 14, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,343 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.[/quote]
So .0017% death rate. Of those, how many died as a result of the vaccine and how many died of other causes?

They are saying that, other than the clotting deaths, there is no evidence of a causal link between the vaccine and the deaths. That is actually very good news. A tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of people died as a side effect of one of the vaccines meaning that the risks associated with the vaccines are minuscule.

Of those, how many died as a result of the vaccine and how many died of other causes?
Why are people quickly to discredit this, but won't have it when people question how many people died of JUST covid. I.e, how many of those died had other causing factors. How many people died within 30 days of a positive test, but it wasn't covid they died of but it was recorded on the figures anyway?

@Neron - Why are people quickly to discredit this, but won't have it when people question how many people died of JUST covid. I.e, how many of those died had other causing factors. How many people died within 30 days of a positive test, but it wasn't covid they died of but it was recorded on the figures anyway?

Firstly, the deaths were investigated and, other than a small percentage of them, no causal relationship was found between the vaccine and the death. Secondly, while deaths have been attributed to covid that are not necessarily from covid, the figure most sensible people refer to is the excess death rate over the normal rate. While still not precise, it gives a good day indication of the death rate.

Alongwayfromeverything

fullfact.org/online/1102-vaccine-adr-death/

People die all the time. That death rate is what you would expect in the absence of vaccines, or indeed covid. Where is the proven link between vaccine and ‘thousands of deaths’, aside from the absolutely tiny chance of blood clot issues?

@Alongwayfromeverything

By that same token the main cause for vaccinating is undermined ‘people die all the time’ so why bother trying to prevent death...

@ Lei8133 - By that same token the main cause for vaccinating is undermined ‘people die all the time’ so why bother trying to prevent death...

I'm wondering are you being deliberately obtuse now.

@Alongwayfromeverything was obviously referring to the fact the deaths that happen soon after the vaccine are not necessarily connected as a certain percentage of people die for all sorts of reasons at any given time. The deaths were investigated to determine whether there was a causal effect and, except for a small number connected to clotting, there was no evidence of any connection between the two.

Still waiting for someone to post a source for thousands of vaccine deaths…

There is no reason not to have the vaccine and be part of the solution to this global problem.

Hahaha @OchonAgusOchonOh oh I do enjoy our banter!

In a way yes I suppose I was, in an attempt to point out a sentiment those opposed to the vaccine might raise when you make a statement such as ‘people die all the time’

@Lei8133 - In a way yes I suppose I was, in an attempt to point out a sentiment those opposed to the vaccine might raise when you make a statement such as ‘people die all the time’

Why though? You're just making yourself look stupid. A comment like you made suggests a basic lack of understanding of simple logic.

Okay so if you think my last quote was taken out of context, and that you didn't mean nobody does something for the good of other people, how about this quote?:

"The choice to vaccinate is entirely selfish and I think we have to stop ‘looking down at people from our high horses’ telling them what they should be doing. How many people donate to oxfam?... of every earning adult in richer countries donated a small sum monthly we could likely end poverty in 3rd world countries... do we do it? No, cos it matters very little to us. But I can imagine if we were told that poverty was infections and the only way to prevent ourselves falling prey and our loved ones was for every earning adult to donate to a fund.... we would be all over it. people only ever do anything for themselves."

Not only have you explicitly said people only ever do anything for themselves, you've also said that 'poverty means very little to us' as if we all think the way you do.

First of all, even if there are individual benefits (like 'feeling good about ourselves') to any decision we make that could be considered selfless to some, that does not mean we don't care about others or that we ONLY do it for that selfish reason. We are capable of nuanced thought, and complex motivations including caring about society on the whole. If you believe the majority of people are incapable of compassion or empathy... Well I don't know how you face the world everyday to be honest.

As for your point about us not all donating a small amount to end poverty worldwide - you don't really know that, because we are not given the choice to donate a small amount to end poverty worldwide. As I am sure you are aware, it isn't as simple as "donate £3 a month and we'll end world poverty". People want to know how that will be achieved, and to trust that is even achievable. It's sort of like saying people aren't happy to pay higher taxes to ensure everyone lives a longer life. Paying higher taxes doesn't guarantee this - it depends on who is collecting and spending those taxes, how they believe they will achieve their goals and whether they are competent enough to pull it off (among other things).

Off topic but this stuff reminds me of when people say that if anyone cared that much about people living in poverty they wouldn't buy cheap clothes. Sounds logical, but a huge amount of effort goes into making it easy for customers not to think about how the clothes were made. When an experiment was done in which £1 t-shirts were put in vending machines, people queued up to buy them. When a message was used explaining the conditions of the workers before payment, the majority declined. Really off on a tangent now I realise but people on the whole are not as selfish as some would have us believe, but society (and especially British society under the Conservatives) has become more individualist over the years, with encouragement to think more about ourselves and less about our communities/society on the whole. This was a political change intended to fuel capitalism, and has been to the detriment of the environment and public health IMO.

@OchonAgusOchonOh lmao in the opinion of... some random unknown people online. In all honesty endnote if I knew everyone on this feed IRL I still wouldn’t care none for their opinions on my intellect or as their option may be, the lack of.

*opinion

@Person23 I do think that my statement applies to the vast majority of people. I think that a smaller minority of people do ‘selfless’ things but again acknowledge that even a ‘selfless’ act is of benefit to the person carrying the act out (I.e. feel good factor) so by that reckoning it was still done with ‘self’ gratification in ‘mind’ albeit this may be subconscious. There are of course exceptions to every rule, like for example saving someone from a burning building etc, I think that would maybe be considered a truly selfless act. Because it requires someone doing something for the benefit of another when the doing so could be to their detriment.

Again, I stand by my comment that people do not care about poverty in the sense that it does not feature in the average persons everyday thoughts. If a ‘mirror’ such as the one in the experiment you described is held up to them then I’m not saying or at least I’m not meaning to say there is no empathy for situations such as poverty, but when no one is questioning the decision/act or drawing the average person’s attention to it. Most people act in a way that to me suggests that they do not ‘care’ enough about poverty to be motivated to making a sustainable plan to end it. IMO.

Really off on a tangent now I realise but people on the whole are not as selfish as some would have us believe, but society (and especially British society under the Conservatives) has become more individualist over the years, with encouragement to think more about ourselves and less about our communities/society on the whole. This was a political change intended to fuel capitalism, and has been to the detriment of the environment and public health IMO.

In a way you almost agree that people are encouraged to be more inclined to self-serve. Whether people are naturally geared up that way is maybe a completely different topic, I was in no way suggesting that doing things only for ourselves is human nature and I haven’t really explored that as a theory....
To me what you said about the buying of clothes, I believe the same to be true for the general everyday living - that a lot of effort goes in to making it easy for others not to think about anyone else but themselves.

[quote Lei8133]@OchonAgusOchonOh lmao in the opinion of... some random unknown people online. In all honesty endnote if I knew everyone on this feed IRL I still wouldn’t care none for their opinions on my intellect or as their option may be, the lack of.[/quote]
Shame really as it does preclude intelligent debate.

@OchonAgusOchonOh Caring or not caring for the opinions of others on how intelligent I am, impedes intelligent debate?... How so Professor Brainbox? Please enlighten this poor lowly schmo.

Surely, what you mean to say is that my being stupid (as proclaimed by the honourable Prof. Brainbox, top authority on determining the nations intelligence) prevents ‘intelligent’ debate.

Yes... I’m being sarcastic and deliberately obtuse because if you’re going to make such contemptuous statements at least ensure you’re quoting the relevant bit of literature your response relates to.

Funny how you had no probably ‘debating/arguing’ with Stupid for a number of days though... Does that make you intelligent or more stupid? Please measure against your own scale Professor

*problems

[quote Lei8133]@OchonAgusOchonOh Caring or not caring for the opinions of others on how intelligent I am, impedes intelligent debate?... How so Professor Brainbox? Please enlighten this poor lowly schmo.

Surely, what you mean to say is that my being stupid (as proclaimed by the honourable Prof. Brainbox, top authority on determining the nations intelligence) prevents ‘intelligent’ debate.

Yes... I’m being sarcastic and deliberately obtuse because if you’re going to make such contemptuous statements at least ensure you’re quoting the relevant bit of literature your response relates to.

Funny how you had no probably ‘debating/arguing’ with Stupid for a number of days though... Does that make you intelligent or more stupid? Please measure against your own scale Professor[/quote]
Caring or not caring for the opinions of others on how intelligent I am, impedes intelligent debate?... How so Professor Brainbox? Please enlighten this poor lowly schmo.

No. Spouting nonsensical arguments that suggest a lack of basic comprehension and understanding of logic impedes intelligent debate. Doing so deliberately suggests that you are trying to stifle intelligent debate.

And yes, you're right, I did quote the incorrect post (literature is a bit of a stretch). It should have been the one where you stated: In a way yes I suppose I was, in an attempt to point out a sentiment those opposed to the vaccine might raise when you make a statement such as ‘people die all the time’

Funny how you had no probably ‘debating/arguing’ with Stupid for a number of days though... Does that make you intelligent or more stupid? Please measure against your own scale Professor

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Your statements got more and more ridiculous though.It started off as an interesting debate but when it gets to the stage where the responses are nonsensical, there is no point in arguing the points posted.

*@Lei8133 - I think it goes back to what I was trying to debate before, can you compare wanting to live your life without interference of medicine etc, the most natural form of living as risky as choosing to drive a car?!? *

No, because it's MUCH more risky than driving a car, assuming that one has been trained to do the latter. (And I speak as someone who doesn't take the risk of driving a car, because I have been advised against it due to visual difficulties.)

Countries, where most people don't have the 'interference of medicine', tend to have very low life expectancies compared with those where they do. In the days when we all 'lived in the most natural way', without 'the interference of medicine', few people lived to old age, and many didn't live to the age of 5.

Yes, some of this is because in times and places that lacked modern medicine, people were/are also poor and deprived of many other things. But even in poor areas, life expectancy has tended to increase significantly when vaccination programmes were introduced. The greatest problem with the Covid vaccine is its very slow rollout in poorer countries.

If you, or any individual, wishes to avoid the 'interference' of modern medicine and risk an earlier death, that should be entirely up to you. But then you should not undertake jobs and other activities that will put others at significant risk of infection. Yes, elderly and vulnerable people should be vaccinated themselves, and most in this country have been; but in some cases the health problems that make them vulnerable may also make them unable to be vaccinated, or make the vaccinations less effective.

Yes, some of this is because

Omit the last 6 words, which were accidentally copied from my 3rd paragraph.

@Roonerspismed

No convincing reason? How about thousands of vaccine related deaths?

How about millions of Covid deaths? And years of restrictions?

Idiots