Fed up of being labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’

[WilsonMilson]

Just that. I’ve expressed some concerns about the vaccines, AZ in particular.

I’m very glad we have vaccines for the elderly and vulnerable, as covid can be deadly. But, as yet we simply do not have the data on longer term outcomes from vaccines and that concerns me when we start jabbing the young and the healthy. We are already seeing blood clots with AZ becoming a serious issue.

I’d consider myself an educated and informed person. My ds has had all his routine vaccinations to now and I am not a tin foil hat wearer, flat earthier, or conspiracy loon of any description. Yet, whenever trying to initiate a sensible discussion based on science and reason, it gets shot down as conspiracy or am labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’, which I am emphatically not.

Why is is so difficult, here and elsewhere to have a sensible discussion about this?

"it is safer to not have the vaccine if you are under 80" - indeputable if under 70 as covid doesnt adversly afect anyone under that age to any extent - we are talking fractions of a percent.
absolutely incorrect - share publications to back this up

"asymptomatic transmission is not possible" - The WHO advised that asymptomatic spread is not a driver of infection. Wuhan residents were tests (9.6 million out of 10 million) and there was no measurable asymptomatic spread.
there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate people with no symptoms are able to transmit coronavirus. I don't have the will to repost the links for the millionth time but you can find them in my pps.

"no healthy child has died of coronavirus"
I think its less than 10 if I recall in a whole year
still misinformation that he's peddling?

"the reason we're being vaccinated is to create a "unique identifier" for each person" - its possible techinically to do this but thats another discussion
what do you mean? by what mechanism? why bother?

"HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID" - lots of info on this out there as profolatic and tratement at any stage as it ivermectin.
Well tolerated drugs that have been around decades yet not able to be used in western countries yet used in many others successfully.

This is completely false - there is no robust evidence to suggest HCQ is an effective treatment. Link if you have any studies.

@AUserName12345 if it wasn't obvious

no excess deaths in a "pandemic"

Such bollocks.

data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Excess-Deaths-Associated-with-COVID-19/xkkf-xrst/

Right. So it's your genuine belief that it's entirely possible that every country in the world has conspired to invent a reason to needlessly vaccinate entire populations, at massive expense, whilst with the intention of injuring/killing a proportion of people with those vaccines in order to reduce the worldwide population?

But you're not a conspiracy theorist?

All these threads start out with seemingly rational and reasoned arguments and deteriorate into full Q-Anon "governments are out to kill us" nonsense by the end.

@MareofBeasttown

All these threads start out with seemingly rational and reasoned arguments and deteriorate into full Q-Anon "governments are out to kill us" nonsense by the end.

Exactly, and that's why there is an element of impatience/suspicion around all vaccine critical posts. I only continue to engage with them because the misinformation needs to be challenged. I worry if it's not other people reading the thread might be more inclined to believe it's true and I'm sure that's the reason a lot of posters feel they can't just disengage.

@MareofBeasttown

All these threads start out with seemingly rational and reasoned arguments and deteriorate into full Q-Anon "governments are out to kill us" nonsense by the end.

Pretty much

hcq study example:

www.cochrane.org/news/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-useful-treating-people-covid-19-or-preventing-infection

Bhagteshwar Singh, Lead author of this review and Clinical Research Fellow at the Institute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool explains,

“Early in the pandemic, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine had been put forward as potential drugs for treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Evidence from initial studies was inadequate, but more recent reports from larger trials meant we could conclude in our review that hydroxychloroquine is not beneficial for patients with COVID-19 who require care in hospital. The evidence is less clear for prevention of COVID-19 and for people being treated as outpatients. However, with no benefit when used for treatment of severe COVID-19, a benefit in these situations is unlikely.”

Senior author Dr Tom Fletcher added: “This review certainly should put a line under using this drug to treat COVID-19, but some countries and health providers are still caught up in the earlier hype and prescribing the drug. We hope this review will help these practices end soon."

@AUserName12345

You don't think it's at all possible that you're just wrong? And that actually if you understand the situation properly it does make sense to vaccinate everyone? Can you accept that as a possibility?

@AUserName12345

I debunked your "over 1200 dead" many pages ago, by going to the source. There are 58 people in the UK who have sadly died from clotting and low platelets combination.

You cannot blindly accept the stats that any person who died within a couple of weeks of a vaccine necessarily died because of that vaccine, and yet simultaneously deny that any of the very elderly people who died whilst infected with covid died because of covid.

At least be logically consistent in your analysis, eh?

I don’t think people who are only expressing concerns are anti vaxxers per se but endless threads on the same bloody thing all the time are really boring. Only on MN are people making such a fuss about it. Everyone I know IRL has just gone and rolled up their sleeve, take what they were offered and not moaned about it. And they’re intelligent and well educated too.

@WilsonMilson - so you want to have a “sensible discussion” about why you can’t have a “sensible discussion”? Frankly, if you start pointless threads like this and expect any sensible answers, I think you are the problem. You can’t get a sensible discussion out of a ridiculous question. Do you even have any theories of your own that don’t sound remarkably like conspiracy theories to explain why the way you ask questions just results in you being shot down? Do you have a suggested way out of this global pandemic that doesn’t involve vaccinating people with the available vaccines? Do you think most scientists believe life can go back to the way we were used to once only the elderly and most vulnerable have been vaccinated? What sort of a life do you want to live? What sort of a life and economy do you want to go back to? And how long are you willing to wait? Do you think others are willing to wait that long? What sort of healthcare do you want to be available to you? What sort of healthcare do you want made available to the elderly and vulnerable? If you are not willing to look at the bigger picture, it’s not surprising people find your questions about the current risks from current available vaccines tiresome, repetitive and pointless, given the number of threads already available going over the same question.

There is the usual twisting of the truth being trotted out on this thread, including the rubbish about "karey Mulins" (sic). Posts from anti-vaxxers/covid deniers can be spotted a mile off, but those posters don't seem to realise this.

@AUserName12345 Im saying the PCR test is not and never has been a "diagnostic" test

Look up karey Mulins the guy who created it. He states this. He states it can find anything in a body (rna) if the cycles of amplification are turned up high enough and therefore cant make a meaningful diagnostic test or tell if someone is infectious

The supposed quote from Kary Mullis is actually a quote from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19. Lauritsen does not say PCR tests do not work, although he does they can't tell if someone is infectious. You can read the origin of this rumour you are spreading here:

www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm

The problem is, your concerns aren’t based on science and reason - there is no scientific or reasonable basis for calling the AZ vaccine a ‘serious concern’ when the risks are actually so unbelievably low - and lower than many other things people will happily risk (including, of course, Covid itself). That’s why it’s hard for you to get a sensible discussion - your position is fundamentally not sensible.

@User629202

The problem is, your concerns aren’t based on science and reason - there is no scientific or reasonable basis for calling the AZ vaccine a ‘serious concern’ when the risks are actually so unbelievably low - and lower than many other things people will happily risk (including, of course, Covid itself). That’s why it’s hard for you to get a sensible discussion - your position is fundamentally not sensible.

It really depends on the age of the person. Covid itself is actually quite low risk for young people anyway so if you’re happy enough with that risk you may not feel so inclined to rush out and have a vaccine.

Is no statistically significnat excess mortatlity "misinformation"?

Of course it is, and easily disproven by looking at official statistics. When you come out with easily verifiable nonsense like this, it undermines everything you say.

There are literally hundreds of fact checking sites debunking this argument. I would link some but clearly they’re rather too “official” for your liking.

I would link some but clearly they’re rather too “official” for your liking
I heard the scientific and fact checking organisations are part of the cover up
/joking/

It really depends on the age of the person. Covid itself is actually quite low risk for young people anyway so if you’re happy enough with that risk you may not feel so inclined to rush out and have a vaccine.

How many times do the basics need to be repeated?

1. "Young people" mix with all sorts of other people, including those far more at risk from COVID, and including those who medically/physiologically cannot take the vaccine (not those with "anxiety" about it).

1. If we are all vaccinated, the virus has fewer chances of replicating, and therefore mutating.

1. We are an interconnected society - we ALL need to take responsibility for damping down the spread of this nasty disease.

Or would you prefer a diktat that anyone able to take the vaccine, but who refuses, is required by law to self-isolate for the foreseeable future because they are a risk to others?

It should not be given to pregnant women

Why? Do women's brains dissolve whilst pregnant so they cannot make their own choices?