What do you do if a family member is an anti-vaxxer?

[BrutusMcDogface]

I’m so angry with my sibling for putting my parents at risk. So very, very angry.

WWYD? Avoid him? Avoid them?!

Can’t believe he’s being so selfish!

@sleepwouldbenice

No it doesn't. Stop being desperate....

That was for on the brink

@Madamemoiselle

No you’re wrong, it’s merely an enhancement of disease caused by the vaccine produced neutralising antibodies waning, and a higher proportion of non neutralising antibodies remaining. What you’re describing sounds more like a cytokine storm, which can be a further result, and can also happen if someone with pre existing immunity is vaccinated, then catches a different strain of the disease. Most agree that ADE would take a minimum of 6 months, more likely a year to emerge, so early signs showing up now would fit with that. But maybe I’m an idiot? Don’t worry it doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think, what will be will be. We’ve made our decision, now we must live with it.

Why do you think the worlds leading experts agree that mass vaccination is best solution is terms of saving lives and minimising disability? This includes a careful evaluation of the benefits and risks which has included ADE and other adverse outcomes.

Why do you think you know better? What are your qualifications and experience that put you in a position to argue against all these people?

I literally do not understand how posters have decided after a couple of facebook posts and bitchute videos that they know things that have somehow escaped the knowledge of the best people in the field. It's a breathtaking level of confidence in your own intelligence.

I am happy to defer to cardiologists and cardiac researchers in terms of trusting them to know the best way to carry out surgery to get me to the best chance of a successful outcome. I don't read a couple of papers (and then go down an internet rabbit hole) and then decide I know better.

Equally, if one crackpot surgeon was ranting about how he had a new technique which was better, and the old technique would leave me dead in 6 months, I'd probably merrily ignore them and go with the majority opinion from experts.

kudos to @sleepwouldbenice for explaining the same concept over and over again, I admire your persistence

Not sure it's getting through though

I would really like any epidemiologists or even scientists on here to parse the CDC findings. Because I do not think it says that at all.

@MareofBeasttown

I would really like any epidemiologists or even scientists on here to parse the CDC findings. Because I do not think it says that at all.

I'm an epidemiologist (always caveat this with "not in infectious disease!")

Yup the CDC report certainly doesn't say that and I've given many summaries of what it does say on this thread. But apparently I don't have good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.

Sadly weeps into doctorate

[ quote] Why do you think the worlds leading experts agree that mass vaccination is best solution is terms of saving lives and minimising disability? This includes a careful evaluation of the benefits and risks which has included ADE and other adverse outcomes.

Why do you think you know better? What are your qualifications and experience that put you in a position to argue against all these people[/ quote]

Why are they the worlds leading experts? Who says so? Themselves? The government? The vaccine manufacturers?
Plenty of people, just as qualified are saying the precise opposite.
We all choose who to believe.
I have various qualifications, among them the ability to read a peer reviewed scientific paper and decide if it seems plausible, and I possess a healthy dose of scepticism.
The WHO recently changed their decades old definition of immunity from derived from prior infection or vaccination, to derived from vaccination only. Why would that be, do you think?
Vaccine efficiency in Israel is down to

[quote Madamemoiselle][ quote] Why do you think the worlds leading experts agree that mass vaccination is best solution is terms of saving lives and minimising disability? This includes a careful evaluation of the benefits and risks which has included ADE and other adverse outcomes.

Why do you think you know better? What are your qualifications and experience that put you in a position to argue against all these people[/ quote]

Why are they the worlds leading experts? Who says so? Themselves? The government? The vaccine manufacturers?
Plenty of people, just as qualified are saying the precise opposite.
We all choose who to believe.
I have various qualifications, among them the ability to read a peer reviewed scientific paper and decide if it seems plausible, and I possess a healthy dose of scepticism.
The WHO recently changed their decades old definition of immunity from derived from prior infection or vaccination, to derived from vaccination only. Why would that be, do you think?
Vaccine efficiency in Israel is down to

How do you define ‘credible’?

@Madamemoiselle

How do you define ‘credible’?

Someone who a) has relevant experience and expertise in the field and b) their views are based on robust evidence

@riveted1 Ah yes, you are the epidemiologist. I think the NYT 's coverage of CDC has been misleading for many like me, who do not have scientific training. I am waiting for more on this report.

@speckledostrichegg

That would be fine, except all the latest evidence from the CDC suggests that it’s not the case at all.

That is exactly what the CDC report says.

As stated (repeated ad nauseum), infection is not equal between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated. If it was, vaccine efficacy would be 0% which is clearly not the case - estimates range from 60-90% depending on various factors.

If you do not have coronavirus you cannot transmit it

No one knows how well the vaccine stops someone getting delta. It’s a brand nee vaccine and brand new virus. Figures stats and all data changes drastically from month to month! So many people have no symptoms and are not testing. So many people have mild symptoms are not testing. Many of these will be double jabbed. How on Earth can anyone be remotely sure how many double jabbed citizens are getting delta? It looks like deaths are down so the vaxx seems like it’s working to make symptoms milder. This does not translate into ‘I’ve been jabbed so I’ve a 70-90% chance I won’t get it! No one knows!

[quote MareofBeasttown]@riveted1 Ah yes, you are the epidemiologist. I think the NYT 's coverage of CDC has been misleading for many like me, who do not have scientific training. I am waiting for more on this report.[/quote]
Yes definitely - it confused me too as they're normally quite good in reporting!

They updated their headline which is now fine IMO, but the damage was already done.

"Vaccinated People May Spread the Virus, Though Rarely, C.D.C. Reports" - new headline from NYT regarding CDC report

www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-delta.html

Ridiculous turnaround from "no difference in transmission"

"Vaccinated People May Spread the Virus, Though Rarely, C.D.C. Reports" - new headline from NYT regarding CDC report

www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-delta.html

Ridiculous turnaround from "no difference in transmission"

I would say a suspicious turnaround.

Regarding your criteria for how an expert becomes credible in your eyes or not, a) is OK, but how can b) be satisfied? The whole point about evidence is that it’s too early to tell. The vaccines have only been in use for just over 1/2 year so any problems will not have had time to emerge yet.
As I’ve said, it doesn’t matter what you and I think, the virus doesn’t care. It will carry on mutating as every virus has done, and if you vaccinate with an imperfect vaccine in the midst of a pandemic, it will put evolutionary pressure in the virus.
I only really contributed to this thread because of the ridiculous views of the OP, who claimed that someone was selfish for not taking an ineffective vaccine, still only licensed for use under an EUA.
Bottom line is, either the vaccines work, so your own protects you, and what others do is irrelevant, or they don’t work, so why should you expect others to take them on your behalf? Why are the vaccinated so afraid of the unvaccinated?
Everyone on this thread will come round to this way of thinking eventually, it will just take some longer than others.

Thanks @riveted1 that makes much more sense. I don't think of turnarounds and walkbacks as evil scientists lying to us. I think this is a novel coronavirus and therefore, there are bound to be constant new research and updates. Currently, the larger scientific community believes in the efficiency of the vaccine. Good enough for me.

But apparently I don't have good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.

Trying to misrepresent what I said again @riveted1? I’ll go off and weep into my own doctorate.

@bumbleymummy

But apparently I don't have good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.

Trying to misrepresent what I said again @riveted1? I’ll go off and weep into my own doctorate.

Had a look back and doesn't seem like misrepresentation to me

Your own words:
It actually seems that you take any evidence of adverse side effects, information showing lower risk in certain groups, evidence of lower efficacy as ‘misinformation’.
And clearly your ‘reasonable skills in critically assessing evidence’ don’t stretch to a simple AS

Absolutely intrigued as to the specific field your PhD is in @bumbleymummy?

Do you know what AS stands for? Advanced search. So you think saying that she doesn’t stretch her skills to using AS on MN means she doesn’t have ‘good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.’? I’m not sure I would class MN as scientific evidence tbh.

I have a science PhD and an MSc so a decent enough background in ‘reviewing scientific evidence’. What about you? :)

@bumbleymummy

Do you know what AS stands for? Advanced search. So you think saying that she doesn’t stretch her skills to using AS on MN means she doesn’t have ‘good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.’? I’m not sure I would class MN as scientific evidence tbh.

I have a science PhD and an MSc so a decent enough background in ‘reviewing scientific evidence’. What about you? :)

Your response to this re: @riveted1 makes literally no sense - your statements about them clearly indicated you thought they didn't have good evidence reviewing skills.

Research scientist for a UK university here, which requires PhD and postdoc experience etc.

Yes, I know what it requires. :)

It makes perfect sense in the context of the conversation we were having and what she accused me of posting.

@speckledostricheggyou didn’t answer my question earlier,

There is plenty of research that shows that natural immunity is reliable and long lasting the majority. Surely that’s a good thing? Why are you so keen to dismiss it?

@bumbleymummy

Yes, I know what it requires. :)

It makes perfect sense in the context of the conversation we were having and what she accused me of posting.

No it really does not

They said But apparently I don't have good skills in reviewing scientific evidence.

Based on your statements:
It actually seems that you take any evidence of adverse side effects, information showing lower risk in certain groups, evidence of lower efficacy as ‘misinformation’.
And clearly your ‘reasonable skills in critically assessing evidence’ don’t stretch to a simple AS

It's very obvious what you were trying to imply and not sure why you're so adamant to backtrack.

[quote bumbleymummy]@speckledostricheggyou didn’t answer my question earlier,

There is plenty of research that shows that natural immunity is reliable and long lasting the majority. Surely that’s a good thing? Why are you so keen to dismiss it?[/quote]
because you have had this question answered a multitude of times by multiple different posters and every time you ignore it.

seeing as you pay for the advanced search function I suggest you use it

Not backtracking at all. If you read a few comments back you would see what she was accusing me of. I am defending myself because I don’t think that looking at evidence of adverse side effects, or information that shows lower risk in certain group or studies that show evidence of lower efficacy against certain strains are, in fact, ‘misinformation’ when they come from scientific journals or reputable organisations.

Surely you know the ‘stretch to a simple AS’ comment was tongue in cheek?