Boyfriend announced he’s an anti vaxxer

[Gonnagetgoing]

So been seeing someone since November and he dropped the bombshell that he’s an anti vaxxer.

I’ve had both vaccines plus booster as it’s the right thing to do.

Are we doomed or should I get over this?

Of course it's not doomed!! Can't believe people on here think it is.

Totally weird.

If you have the sense to listen to another point of view, the great Barrington declaration is a decent place to start. That's if it's worth your time at this point

@mummykel16

If you have the sense to listen to another point of view, the great Barrington declaration is a decent place to start. That's if it's worth your time at this point

The GBD was totally debunked, by real world evidence of how the pandemic unfolded. Many many scientists have spoken out against it

Here's a nice summary:

theconversation.com/5-failings-of-the-great-barrington-declarations-dangerous-plan-for-covid-19-natural-herd-immunity-148975

I have had three Covid vaccinations, so am not an anti-vaxxer, but would find an anti-vaxxer easier to cope with than someone who said they have the Covid vaccination "because it's the right thing to do". Unthinking moral smugness and superiority would be far worse, for me, than anything an anti-vaxxer could throw at me.

Hardly think he's anti-vac after reading your other posts. If I was him I would be quite offended that you'd described him that way - it's a serious insult when he's clearly basing his decision on his personal choice and not crazy 5G microchip theories and protesting outside hospitals about it. If I was him, I'd be the one re-considering the relationship with you

Doomed.

Sorry

mummykel16

If you have the sense to listen to another point of view, the great Barrington declaration is a decent place to start. That's if it's worth your time at this point

The GBD was totally debunked, by real world evidence of how the pandemic unfolded.

No, It wasn't debunked, calling people fringe scientists etc is not debunking anything, getting people sacked is proving nothing, removing funding proves nothing, like I said if you are interested read and listen to what they have said not what others say they have said.
As for getting things wrong the follow the science lot filling the governments ears made many many mistakes, and still get listened to

@mummykel16

mummykel16

If you have the sense to listen to another point of view, the great Barrington declaration is a decent place to start. That's if it's worth your time at this point

The GBD was totally debunked, by real world evidence of how the pandemic unfolded.

No, It wasn't debunked, calling people fringe scientists etc is not debunking anything, getting people sacked is proving nothing, removing funding proves nothing, like I said if you are interested read and listen to what they have said not what others say they have said.
As for getting things wrong the follow the science lot filling the governments ears made many many mistakes, and still get listened to

I don't think you read my reply @mummykel16

It wasn't debunked by people hurling insults at each other, it was debunked by real world data, as the pandemic progressed

This included factors like it is possible to get reinfected within a short time scale, that non vulnerable people were requiring hospital care in higher numbers than expected, and that it is not possible to shield "the vulnerable" given that they represent a huge portion of our society who we need to function.

You could always read the article I linked?

I'm not that invested in it to read it , but as I said even the ones who did get listened to got it massively wrong, again.

I just like to hear as many sides as possible especially when ones who admit they made mistakes. What's the average age of those who died with not of covid?

I had my jabs as soon as I could based on the very scientific "I know my luck" formula.

Also quite interested in this statement @mummykel16, who are you referring to?

getting people sacked is proving nothing, removing funding proves nothing,

As far as I'm aware, the authors of the GBD are doing incredibly well and have exploited this opportunity to gain citations and impact. There's plans to open some bizzare research institute in Texas along with Tucker Carlson

@mummykel16

I'm not that invested in it to read it , but as I said even the ones who did get listened to got it massively wrong, again.

I just like to hear as many sides as possible especially when ones who admit they made mistakes. What's the average age of those who died with not of covid?

I had my jabs as soon as I could based on the very scientific "I know my luck" formula.

Isn't it interesting how the Trust The Science (whatever the mainstream media tells me it is) crowd will turn on Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford epidemiologists as quacks when their conclusions happen to be inconvenient? "Oh but you see they're just scientists, that's not The Science (tm)"

The facts available, via ONS:

Mean age of death from covid in the UK: Male - 78.7 years. Female - 82.5 years.

Involving covid: Male - 78.6. Female - 82.3.

Is that a sneaky NC @Yeahthat - your posting style is very distinctive

The GBD has been debunked, not because it was inconvenient, but because the pandemic played out in several ways that made it inviable, as described in my post.

As has been said to you on the other thread - death is not the only consequence of COVID, and many many people have explained why this misuse of statistics isn't helpful

What are the long term consequences of the lockdowns?
How many did the models say would die how often did they get it wrong or just outright lie about what would help those with covid ? It's actually scary the way professional opinions have been buried, surely not a good look

@riveted1

I don't know what "other thread" you're referring to, and I can assure you we're not interacting there. I'll tell you in advance that neither am I sending you messages through your TV.

Now we've cleared that up:

I see - you don't like these particular stats (like you don't like particular, inconvenient scientists) therefore they're being, "misused."

The stats indicate that the majority of the population don't need to worry, therefore let's find others so that we can maintain a state of fear and justify draconian measures. You seem to be very invested in that.

The article you claim to "debunk" the GBD is essentially a comment piece by one scientist on theconversation.com. No doubt were something similar posted in favour of the GBD, you'd be demanding peer review before you so much as considered it.

[quote Yeahthat]@riveted1

I don't know what "other thread" you're referring to, and I can assure you we're not interacting there. I'll tell you in advance that neither am I sending you messages through your TV.

Now we've cleared that up:

I see - you don't like these particular stats (like you don't like particular, inconvenient scientists) therefore they're being, "misused."

The stats indicate that the majority of the population don't need to worry, therefore let's find others so that we can maintain a state of fear and justify draconian measures. You seem to be very invested in that.

The article you claim to "debunk" the GBD is essentially a comment piece by one scientist on theconversation.com. No doubt were something similar posted in favour of the GBD, you'd be demanding peer review before you so much as considered it.[/quote]
Nope, it's nothing to do with me "not liking" stats, it's how you're deliberately misinterpreting them even though has been explained before.

Mean age of death does not negate the fact that a significant proportion of young people have died.
Death is not the only consequence of COVID.

Boris Johnson tried to use this argument to pretend the pandemic wasn't happening back in March 2020, fortunately he had some numerically literate advisors.

The GBD was not viable - I have outlined the reasons why which are shared with the vast majority of the world's scientists.

@riveted1

Also quite interested in this statement *@mummykel16*, who are you referring to?

getting people sacked is proving nothing, removing funding proves nothing,

As far as I'm aware, the authors of the GBD are doing incredibly well and have exploited this opportunity to gain citations and impact. There's plans to open some bizzare research institute in Texas along with Tucker Carlson

Which authors?

@mummykel16

What are the long term consequences of the lockdowns? How many did the models say would die how often did they get it wrong or just outright lie about what would help those with covid ? It's actually scary the way professional opinions have been buried, surely not a good look

What has been buried?

Given the fact that you're repeating various claims, this indicates that they have been widely publicised.

The authors of the GBD still get a huge amount of airtime.

Significant proportion of young people, being what?

They get no airtime never have, they have some support on YouTube that's about it, even then many channels got banned just for talking to them

@riveted1

Lol directly reporting stats is now, "misinterpreting them"?

What next? "Reporting ONS statistics is hate speech!"

I don't think there's much point discussing this further with you. I believe that I'm considerably less dogmatic on the issue, and have taken an approach that's both more rational and sceptical.

I'm vaccinated, but ultimately believe that government measures were counterproductive, excessive, and dangerous.

[quote Yeahthat]@riveted1

Lol directly reporting stats is now, "misinterpreting them"?

What next? "Reporting ONS statistics is hate speech!"

I don't think there's much point discussing this further with you. I believe that I'm considerably less dogmatic on the issue, and have taken an approach that's both more rational and sceptical.

I'm vaccinated, but ultimately believe that government measures were counterproductive, excessive, and dangerous.[/quote]
Nope, as I explained, there's nothing wrong with reporting numbers, it's how you're misinterpreting them.

You're trying to argue that the mean age of death being relatively old is somehow indicative of the pandemic having been problematic (or whatever you're trying to say)

Mean age of death being relatively old does not negate the fact that a significant proportion of younger people have died - this is how means work ;)
Death is not the only consequence of COVID.

Boris Johnson tried to use this argument to pretend the pandemic wasn't happening back in March 2020, fortunately he had some numerically literate advisors.

But anyway, the misuse of (accurate) raw figures has been a predictable and tiring event, all through the pandemic.

Just like the "but only X number of people have died solely of COVID", which I'm sure you're planning to trot out next.

@riveted1

"Signficant proportion" is your own term; you've refused to quantify it. Covid deaths in young people are generally described as rare.

Either way, I'm happy that all restrictions are winding down and we're moving on - although I do anticipate that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of a state of alert. I can envisage you emerging masked from your house decades from now, like the Japanese soldiers who held out for decades after the end of WW2

[quote Yeahthat]@riveted1

"Signficant proportion" is your own term; you've refused to quantify it. Covid deaths in young people are generally described as rare.

Either way, I'm happy that all restrictions are winding down and we're moving on - although I do anticipate that you'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of a state of alert. I can envisage you emerging masked from your house decades from now, like the Japanese soldiers who held out for decades after the end of WW2 [/quote]
So hilarious. Not

@mummykel16

If you have the sense to listen to another point of view, the great Barrington declaration is a decent place to start. That's if it's worth your time at this point

My god it's like going back a year or two reading this old erratic load of bobbins