90% of ICU patients admitted with COVID haven't been vaccinated.

[Desithebulldog]

Been listening to the news and they've said that 90% of the patients admitted to ICU with COVID haven't been vaccinated. For each patient admitted they are denying 10 other patients who need surgery their ICU beds. So currently (I'm sure there are more) there are 1,000 patients holding up 10,000 operations. I find this absolutely gobsmacking. Why, why, why would people not get vaccinated to help the NHS? They are on their knees and need all the help they can get. I know it's a personal choice but why are all the non-believers making it so hard for others to get a much needed operation? I just don't get it.

I don’t think anyone is saying ‘sod the vulnerable’. I think we should be speeding up boosters for the vulnerable across the U.K. We can already see figures for elderly people in hospital starting to fall since they were rolled out. I don’t think we should forget about the vulnerable in other countries though. Many of them haven’t even had a first dose yet.

[quote 17istgemagicnumber]@bumbleymummy - I’ve seen you do that too, so don’t be disingenuous.[/quote]
Where? Please provide a quote, in context. You are the ones being disingenuous here.

@Innocenta - Yes I'm sure it does. But I'm also sure if @Bumbleymummy had been 'misleading people about vaccine efficacy and safety' then you would have got her comments banned.

You still seem unable to share a single, specific example of misinformation which seems strange if this thread really is littered with them.

[quote wildchild554]@pianolessons1 I'm CEV and unvaccinated and have been advised not to have the vaccine as it poses a greater risk to me due to my allergies than the chance I will get covid, especially since I'm still being cautious whilst getting on with my life. I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot more can't have it. I personally know a few that also have been told not to have it. To be honest the media want to sell papers so I doubt they would even consider checking things like how many couldn't get due to health reasons. But this is one fact I really like to know myself.[/quote]
Unless that advice came from a consultant allergy specialist you might want to question it.

@bumbleymummy because even back in 2012, you’re on about aluminium in vaccines.

You may not think you're anti vaxx, but I’m calling you anti vaxx.

The most esteemed professors and MEDICAL doctors worldwide are checking this out for us with peer based research. I’m going to trust them and not ‘doctor’ bumbleymummy on social media.

@pianolessons1 It took 2 weeks and 10 different medical professionals to finally decide the best course of action, they were considering having me get it in a hospital setting but then decided was too much risk. Was a very long two weeks trying to chase up what was going on and what had been decided.

You still haven’t provided a quote (because you can’t). You’re just slinging mud.

[quote JaycDeeC]@EnidSpyton no, there’s not many trials that exclude women at all. I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from but it’s not correct. There may be a small number of first in human trials that exclude women but that’s about sexual reproduction. You can ask male participants in these studies to withhold sexual activity that could result in pregnancy for three months whilst drugs are in development and their teratogenicity investigated, but you couldn’t ask a woman to refrain for life. All drugs where there is good evidence for efficacy have to be ultimately trialled on the population that will experience that disease and need treatment with the drug, which means there will always be women participating in trials prior to drugs being made available to the public.[/quote]
I have an MA in Gender Studies. I think I probably know a little bit more about this than you.

Your post is completely inaccurate and shows your ignorance of the reality of how medical trials work.

I suggest you read Caroline Criado Perez's Invisible Women for a detailed study of how women are excluded from worldwide medical trials. I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

@bumbleymummy

You still haven’t provided a quote (because you can’t). You’re just slinging mud.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will tell you why I am not interested in engaging with this 'provide a quote' business. @nojudgementhere - you also seem to want to read this, so here it is.

Because anti-vaxxer stuff is boring. Again, don't know about other posters, but I've had medical problems all my life, so I started seeing this 'alternative' health stuff when I was really young. Indeed, I was down to the homeopath with my parents before we even got the internet at home! (They did vaccinate me, though. I don't blame them for the homeopath.)

When I had the internet, I read all this stuff too. I already know your arguments; I know the gender stuff; I know the ethical stuff; I know the Christian stuff, even. It's a mountain of crumbs, and there are occasional tiny flakes of value in it (like, yes, a history of inequality in developing many medical procedures). Those flakes are what you rely on to make it more difficult to dismiss wholesale.

But I've seen how it takes over communities, how it leads to people engaging in more and more risky 'medical' procedures, and how it overall damages health in desperately sad, individual ways - and frightening, population-level ones. If you don't see this, I cannot help you.

I am also just not that interested in helping you. I already know that there is essentially 0% chance of changing a confirmed anti-vaxxers mind. Why would I waste my time going back and forth with someone who just wants to twist the truth? I know what they're doing, and they either know or have been deceived - it is all-round sad and ghastly. I get nothing out of looking through someone's old posts: nothing.

What is so toxic is the impact - over months, and years, and decades, not a handful of threads - of this entire anti-science discourse. I won't pretend it's anything other than toxic. I know that pisses you off, but you'll have to live with it.

[quote nojudgementhere]**@Innocenta* - Yes I'm sure it does. But I'm also sure if @Bumbleymummy* had been 'misleading people about vaccine efficacy and safety' then you would have got her comments banned.

You still seem unable to share a single, specific example of misinformation which seems strange if this thread really is littered with them.[/quote]
MNHQ does not ban for anti-vaxxer views.

in future wouldn't it be better to make your points in a similar fashion to this instead of reverting to generic inappropriate cliches such as " anti vaxxers and "covid misinformation"?

Perhaps rather than taking it upon yourself to correct my style of posting, you could rethink your inventive suggestion of an exorcist...?

Agreed - people who are too criminally stupid to get a safe proven vaccination should not be treated when they get covid - let's not forget that on the early days people over 60 with covid were being denied treatment before the vaccines existed - seems fair to me that those now not vaccinated shouldn't get treatment

So a previous poster challenging a study you were using to try and prove a point:

bumbleymummy
specifically for the methods it uses which have been widely criticised

Link to where the methods in this study have been ‘widely criticised’ please.

As I’ve pointed out several times, they filtered to try to include only medically reported incidents. And yes, I did say it was a preprint in my post.
I don't think I need to provide a link demonstrating that VAERS/yellow card data should not be used as evidence of causality hmm

It's very basic epidemiology and literally posted on the reporting website, and on any release which uses their data.

@Innocent - Wow, that was a very long and rambling way to tell us you don't have an example of @Bumbleymummy's supposed misinformation. Next time you are arguing with somebody, maybe you could try addressing the points they are making rather than accusing them of something they haven't done? Thanks in advance.

@inmocenta that’s all well and good but I’m not an antivaxxer.

“ I already know your arguments; I know the gender stuff; I know the ethical stuff; I know the Christian stuff, even.”

None of these are my arguments .

I think vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented millions of disabilities. I think it was a good call by the JCVI to prioritise certain groups for vaccination in the U.K. to reduce hospitalisations. I think the booster roll out now is very clearly making a difference to hospital figures for the elderly so we should be trying to ‘boost’ as many of them as possible before the winter surges properly kick in. I think we should be prioritising vaccinating health workers and vulnerable people in other countries who haven’t even managed to get first doses yet while we’re vaccinating low risk groups. I think we should have a campaign to increase awareness of BMI risk to increase uptake of the vaccine and reduce hospital figures.

Every single one of those opinions supports the use of vaccines here in the U.K. and elsewhere. Can you really not see how ridiculous it is to call me ‘antivax’ for that?

You seem to be harbouring some kind of built up resentment towards genuine antivaxxers and are maybe projecting that onto anyone who speaks out against mandatory vaccination/passports etc because you assume that they must fall into that category. Well I don’t. Just stop.

Isn’t science all about backing up arguments with evidence? @Innocenta I’m not sure I’ve seen (albeit I’m a newbie) any evidence of your arguments against @bumbleymummy.

I think this quote from Richard Dawkins quote is quite fitting - “Science replaces private prejudice with public verifiable evidence”.

Like I said @nojudgementhere- back in 2012 she’s posting ‘scary’ stuff about aluminium in vaccines. Subtlety. Wide eyed. What do you think about this type stuff. If it’s ‘ok’ to call the government out on supposed drip drip type manipulation - then why not apply the same to certain posters on here.

@Awakened22 I just explained very thoroughly. Feel free to re-read my post! My post, of course, is not 'science', since it is a post on MN. As such it is, by definition, my opinion only on how best I can allocate limited energy.

There are only so many ways to say "not in getting into pointless back-and-forths with people who I know are never going to change their minds".

So you’re going to go back to 2012 to a question I asked about aluminium in vaccines to ‘prove’ that I’m anti vaccine and ignore everything I’ve written above?

@Innocenta, it's not anti-science to say that people should have a choice over what they put in their bodies.

That is a basic human right.

Unless you genuinely lack the capacity to make decisions for yourself, as a democratic, supposedly civilised society, I believe it is wrong to FORCE people to have medical treatment. No matter whether it would save their life or not, the right to choice must remain.

If that makes me an anti-vaxxer, then I'm proud to be one.

I am not anti science. I have had my vaccines. But I don't believe it is ever right to enforce people to have medical treatment they don't want. That is fascism. I can't believe more people don't have a problem with it, to be honest.

It's interesting, isn't it, that we're all up in arms about America reversing Roe vs Wade and abortion no longer being legal in the States, because it's our body and our choice. But when it comes to the vaccine, apparently we're perfectly happy for the state to choose what happens to our bodies.

I really do think the world has gone mad. Imprisoning people, preventing people from leaving their homes and countries, preventing them from accessing social activities and workplaces, if they don't comply with taking the vaccine. And yet apparently it's those of us who aren't happy with this who are the 'thickos' who need our heads examining.

@17istgemagicnumber

Like I said *@nojudgementhere*- back in 2012 she’s posting ‘scary’ stuff about aluminium in vaccines. Subtlety. Wide eyed. What do you think about this type stuff. If it’s ‘ok’ to call the government out on supposed drip drip type manipulation - then why not apply the same to certain posters on here.

Very well said. If you've been around on the internet with your eyes open... You know it. It's all in the playbook, just like this attempt to force anyone who challenges their doctrine into fruitless 'debate'.

@Bertiebiscuit

Agreed - people who are too criminally stupid to get a safe proven vaccination should not be treated when they get covid - let's not forget that on the early days people over 60 with covid were being denied treatment before the vaccines existed - seems fair to me that those now not vaccinated shouldn't get treatment

Not "criminally stupid"... some people are scared. That does not make them stupid.

@Innocenta please refer to my above post that lists my various opinions and tell me what you would like me to change my mind about?