Who's had the vaccination?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Iasona
That is false information as getting vaccinated will not stop you infecting a ‘taxi driver or university tutor’.
You said it yourself - vaccines will reduce virus shredding - therefore you are plainly less likely to infect another person
I am still debating it. I am unsure if I want a needle in my arm or not.
Original post by harrysbar
You said it yourself - vaccines will reduce virus shredding - therefore you are plainly less likely to infect another person
You are less likely to but it definitely doesn’t prevent it. Israel still has about one thousand new infections per day. What that user said is scientifically false, so I was pointing it out.
Original post by tinygirl96
I am still debating it. I am unsure if I want a needle in my arm or not.
All things being equal, I would think not. But in this case, go for it tg
Had both of my Pfizer ones now - no side effects apart from the usual sore arm. But I know a lot of people who have had side affects (mainly from the AstraZeneca/Oxford one) and been ill in bed for a day or two. I believe side effects are a good sign, showing the body is creating an immune response? Better knowing it's not a real illness and will pass 
Original post by Iasona
You are less likely to but it definitely doesn’t prevent it. Israel still has about one thousand new infections per day. What that user said is scientifically false, so I was pointing it out.
I think you are being a bit pedantic, it was not stated that vaccination definitely does this or that
Original post by ER141
Actually it might because there is a lower chance of transmission if you are vaccinated. Yes there is still a risk, I'm not disputing that, but it is safer for everyone if people get the vaccine, there isn't really a reason not to (if you aren't immunocompromised, pregnant, etc)
The fact is that it is the vulnerable who need to be vaccinated. Whether or not a young person is vaccinated, will not stop them infecting a ‘taxi driver or tutor’ if they themselves are not vaccinated. I prefer sticking to medical reasoning rather than guilt tripping propaganda.
Original post by tinygirl96
I am still debating it. I am unsure if I want a needle in my arm or not.
Have you not ever had a vaccine or had bloods taken before? It's over within seconds (I'm not great with pain so I just pinch my finger with my nail and focus on that for a few seconds
)Original post by Iasona
The fact is that it is the vulnerable who need to be vaccinated. Whether or not a young person is vaccinated, will not stop them infecting a ‘taxi driver or tutor’ if they themselves are not vaccinated. I prefer sticking to medical reasoning rather than guilt tripping propaganda.
I agree the vulnerable should get vaccinated asap. But you are aware that it doesn't work in 100% of cases, or some people are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons?
Original post by Iasona
You are less likely to but it definitely doesn’t prevent it. Israel still has about one thousand new infections per day. What that user said is scientifically false, so I was pointing it out.
"less likely to" sounds a good reason to get vaccinated to me, and no one said it entirely prevents it
Original post by Iasona
The fact is that it is the vulnerable who need to be vaccinated. Whether or not a young person is vaccinated, will not stop them infecting a ‘taxi driver or tutor’ if they themselves are not vaccinated. I prefer sticking to medical reasoning rather than guilt tripping propaganda.
Well in an ideal world the taxi driver WOULD be vaccinated, along woth everyone else, so yes, it helps.
You aren't using medical reasoning though. You have said yourself that vaccines reduce transmission. And I said reduce not prevent, before you say the same thing for the 6th message in a row.
Seatbelts reduce injuries in car crashes. But am I going to not wear one just because it doesn't prevent them completely? No. { Seatbelts aren't comfortable, and they jerk you back in your seat if you stop suddenly which can damage my neck so I'm just not sure if the risks are worth it, old people with slower reaction times and drunk people are the only ones who get into car crashes, so why would I need to wear one } (end sarcasm)
It isn't guilt tripping, it is a genuine "it is better for you and others". Why do you feel guilty? Because you know you are putting others at risk?
And that isn't a reason not to have a vaccine anyway. "It won't prevent some infections." But what harm does it do to have the vaccine? None
Original post by tinygirl96
I am still debating it. I am unsure if I want a needle in my arm or not.
You don't really feel the needle to be honest. There is a sort of... chilly feeling? when the vaccine liquid goes in, not sure how best to describe it, but the needle doesn't hurt. When they say "slight pinch" it honestly does feel like that
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by ER141
Well in an ideal world the taxi driver WOULD be vaccinated, along woth everyone else, so yes, it helps.
You aren't using medical reasoning though. You have said yourself that vaccines reduce transmission. And I said reduce not prevent, before you say the same thing for the 6th message in a row.
Seatbelts reduce injuries in car crashes. But am I going to not wear one just because it doesn't prevent them completely? No. { Seatbelts aren't comfortable, and they jerk you back in your seat if you stop suddenly which can damage my neck so I'm just not sure if the risks are worth it, old people with slower reaction times and drunk people are the only ones who get into car crashes, so why would I need to wear one } (end sarcasm)
It isn't guilt tripping, it is a genuine "it is better for you and others". Why do you feel guilty? Because you know you are putting others at risk?
And that isn't a reason not to have a vaccine anyway. "It won't prevent some infections." But what harm does it do to have the vaccine? None
You aren't using medical reasoning though. You have said yourself that vaccines reduce transmission. And I said reduce not prevent, before you say the same thing for the 6th message in a row.
Seatbelts reduce injuries in car crashes. But am I going to not wear one just because it doesn't prevent them completely? No. { Seatbelts aren't comfortable, and they jerk you back in your seat if you stop suddenly which can damage my neck so I'm just not sure if the risks are worth it, old people with slower reaction times and drunk people are the only ones who get into car crashes, so why would I need to wear one } (end sarcasm)
It isn't guilt tripping, it is a genuine "it is better for you and others". Why do you feel guilty? Because you know you are putting others at risk?
And that isn't a reason not to have a vaccine anyway. "It won't prevent some infections." But what harm does it do to have the vaccine? None
Gosh you seem to be relentlessly defending that poster. I hope she/he pays you. What they said was wrong and reeks of the kind of rhetoric used by the government.
Original post by harrysbar
I agree the vulnerable should get vaccinated asap. But you are aware that it doesn't work in 100% of cases, or some people are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons?
As far as I know, there are no cases where the vaccine does not give some protection. It just doesn't give 100% protection to people. You are correct that some people cannot be vaccinated, and that is why everyone who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons must be. If they are not, the spread will not be reduced enough and you put those who cannot be vaccinated at risk.
Original post by Iasona
Gosh you seem to be relentlessly defending that poster. I hope she/he pays you. What they said was wrong and reeks of the kind of rhetoric used by the government.
1. Not defending the poster, I am simply telling the truth about vaccines and trying to correct your misinformation.
2. You didn't address any of the points in my post, which makes me think that you don't have any valid response to it
3. Seriously, stop saying "they were wrong." The poster never said it stops all covid cases. And at this point, I wasn't even talking about the original post, I am just trying to help you see that vaccines HELP REDUCE TRANSMISSION.
4. Rhetoric used by the government? Now I am not a supporter of this government by a long shot, but WHY would they fork out a huge amount of money to vaccinate everyone? Either it genuinely helps people (spoiler, it does) or it benefits them somehow, which I know isn't unlikely in many cases but I fail to see how vaccinating people could serve some alternative agenda. It's not rhetoric, it's fact, and essentially every infectious disease scientist will say have the vaccine
(Original post by ER141)
1. Even if you have mild/no symptoms you can still get long covid. So young people who have no symptoms could still develop heart problems in the future, for example
This is nothing but very lame "Project Fear" narrative.. Where are your facts and figures? You can also get struck by lightning and/or run over by a bus or have a car accident. What matters then is how likely you are to first get Covid at all and then to get "Long Covid". The answer is of course that you are extremely unlikely to get Long Covid. Some do get it, but they are a minority same with the number of people who die from Covid.
All you are doing here is trying to scaremonger and using that as some kind of argument for getting vaxed. It's poor strategy for such a debate.
It also needs to be understood that the "Long Covid" narrative is divisive. Most illnesses and conditions see people suffer long term issues. This includes Flu and Pneumonia and Whooping Cough and tons of other illnesses. But we haven't inventeded silly meme terms for "Long Flu" and "Long Pneumonia". It's just part of the whole scaremongering PR campaign. Is "Long Covid" any more prevalent than "Long Flu"? Do you have any facts and figures? Or are you just peddling fear?
(Original post by ER141)
2. The side effects experienced after the vaccine are not a disease, they are your immune system reacting to the vaccine. Not everyone has side effects, and that doesn't mean the vaccine isn't working, but if you have side effects like fever, aches, chills, then that is just your immune system. It feels horrible, but your life isn't in danger like it is when you have actual covid, because your body is under attack from real covid, not the vaccine.
Not sure why you raise this because I never disputed it. However it's a fact that a minority of people suffer much worse side effects from all vaccines and some of them are life changing such as the many cases of Narcolepsy seen with the previously rushed out Swine Flu vaccines and things like Guillian Barre Syndrome. No vaccine is 100% free from such impacts. It's a gamble. For the vulnerable that gamble makes sense due to their risks of getting serious Covid illness. For others I'd suggest the gamble isn't necessary to take.
(Original post by ER141)
3. Anyone can die from covid. Yes, it is more likely if you are old or vulnerable, but children with no comorbidities have also died. Even if it was only one group that died, why would you not want to help prevent that? Which brings me on to my next point:
Again you're peddling "Project Fear" to make an argument. It doesn't wash. How many people have actually died specifically because of Covid in the young demographics? Answer = extremely few indeed. In fact the total number of so-called "Covid Deaths" in the UK is some 146,000 which is just 0.2% of the population and the vast majority of those have been older people with multiple underlying health conditions. Sure, there ARE some young people that have actually died, but the number is ridiculously tiny to the extent that it is dwarfed by the number of young people who die in car accidents or any number of other causes.
(Original post by ER141)
4. Herd immunity. Lots of vulnerable people can't have the vaccine because their condition prevents it. Only by having the rest of the population vaccinated and thereby reducing transmission will these people be protected. And like you say, you can still get the virus if you have had the vaccine, though it is MUCH less likely, and having everyone vaccinated will reduce the spread and make it much safer.
This is a classic failed argument of pro-vaxxers. The refutation of it is extremely simple. The demographic you refer to, people who are immune-compromised and thus cannot have the vaccine, are a tiny minority of the total population. The notion of vaccinating the entire world just to try and save that tiny demographic is both flawed, inherently wrong and morally unacceptable. That's because in vaccinating millions or billions of people you WILL harm a certain percentage of those people from serious side effects of the vaccines. It's natural accepted collateral damage. Some people will get Guillian Barre Syndrome, some may get narcolepsy, some will die. Hence you will end up harming far more people than you actually try to save in that tiny immune-compromised demographic. Your point is an old one that just does not stand up to any scrutiny.
(Original post by ER141)
5. Of course we still have to wear masks. It is protecting OTHER people. Yeah, if you've had the vaccine you may get asymptomatic covid rather than full blown covid, but you may still be able to transmit it to others. Until the majority of the population has had the vaccine, we cannot completely ease the pandemic restrictions. So if you want to be able to take of your mask eventually, then have the vaccine and encourage others to do so. And in terms of still having to be swabbed, you will have to do that whether or not you have had the vaccine, but you are more likely to be prevented from doing things because you are more likely to get covid if you haven't been vaccinated. And international travel will require you to show that you have been vaccinated. And the swabs take less than 2 minutes and aren't that bad, hardly an inconvenience.
Another totally flawed argument. You are suggesting effectively that herd immunity can only be achieved via vaccination which is patently wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong and not remotely supported by virology. Natural immunity gained from having had Covid is as strong if not stronger than vaccine-derived immunity and longer lasting. This has been discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6978889
Herd immunity will therefore be achieved by the combination of those with natural immunity and those with vaccine-derived immunity. The pro-vax brigade simply want to try to ignore the former, want to bury it under the carpet or worse still try to disparage the enormous benefits of natural immunity. I find such traits disgusting and wholly out of accordance with science and no-one should be entertaining them. The restrictions we are all currently being subjected to (which themselves are wholly wrong) should be lifted when the vulnerable have all been vaccinated or have natural immunity. That's because they are the primary risk demographics, the groups in which the VAST MAJORITY of serious Covid illness and deaths occur. There is no benefit to society in locking down people who:
- are already naturally immune to Covid
- are tested and shown to be Covid negative
- are not remotely at risk of developing serious Covid illness
As for the swab tests again you make wholly glib statements. Most recently it has been revealed that test swabs have been sterilised using Ethylene Oxide which is a highly toxic substance, DNA altering and cancer causing. Getting swab tested is not something I am personally going to subject myself to. For that and other reasons, not least because the tests themselves are wholly unfit for purpose and produce ridiculously high levels of false positive and false negative results. As you state, the elitist global technocrats seeking to take over the world are going to try and cajole people into taking vaccines through attrition and removal of privileges like traveling by air or sea. Their desire and need to engage in such Orwellian behaviours for me speaks volumes about there being much more to these vaccines than Covid. Regardless I am quite happy to forego air and ship travel for the sake of preserving my health and/or life. Everyone needs to make their own decisions because one thing is VERY certain once you put whatever is in the vaccines in your body, there is no taking it out again.
(Original post by ER141)
6. The vaccine is safe. It has been tested in the same way that any other vaccine would be, just over a shorter time scale. This means trials going on in tandem rather than one after the other, so the length of the trials themselves were still sufficient.
Sorry but no that's a complete lie. Totally false. The vaccines have only been tested for short term safety. Long term safety testing has not yet been done and will be part of future testing as will other areas of testing. Other vaccines take years to complete development and testing, Covid vaccines have not been through that entire process. Here are the FACTS from Pfizer themselves:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
It states:
"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report."
"This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women"
"Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently, and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk groups, such as immunocompromised persons"
As can be seen a whole raft of testing areas HAVE NOT yet been completed and thus your statement about the vaccines having gone through all the normal checks is completely wrong. Don't worry though. lot's of people like yourself have not bothered to do the actual research and have simply swallowed the spoon-fed narratives peddled by pro-vax groups. Hopefully I have helped to make you better informed now.
(Original post by ER141)
"The emergency use authorisation is partly to allow everyone to get the vaccine, because they don't want to give people unnecessary drugs, but this one IS necessary. And in terms of long term effects, the vaccine is transient, it will be broken down by your body pretty soon after you develop immunity, the only thing that will remain is the antibodies."
The EUA is given because we are in a pandemic situation with a minority of people dying but who need the option of taking the lesser of two evils. That is to say that the "at risk" vulnerable people are in the unenviable situation of having to choose between a virus that might kill them and a vaccine that is not fully tested for safety. The EUA gives them the freedom to make that unenviable choice between those evils. Were we not in a pandemic situation these vaccines would NOT gain authorisation simple as. The rest of your statement there is just Pharma spiel. Pharma have a history of telling the public that their vaccines and medicines are safe when they in fact turn out not to be. Some examples:
The "Cutter Incident" Polio
https://devastatingdisasters.com/the-cutter-incident-1955/
Swine Flu Vaccine Victims
These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572
(Original post by ER141)
7. "only" 90% effective?! That's amazing coverage! Almost no vaccines are that effective! And then you say that covid reduces re-infection by 91%. So... the same number as the vaccine? And some of the vaccines are 95% effective.
You've gotten confused here. It is "Natural Immunity" that reduces re-infection by 91%
I agree that 90% efficacy is great for a vaccine but at the same time I am researched enough to know that:
1. What happens in vaccine trials is not the same as happens in real life scenarios
2. Pharma have a horrible history of fraud and falsifying trial data
3. The 90% efficacy rates are based on a ridiculously low number of Covid cases in the trials
Again you probably haven't bothered to do the research here and have just swallowed the media sensationalist figure of 90%
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, despite using around 44,000 trial volunteers, only saw around 200 actual cases of Covid. See here:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
In the case of Pfizer trial there were only 170 cases of Covid, 162 were in the placebo group, 8 were in the vaccinated group.
Whilst that result suggests a 90% effectiveness rate it is nevertheless based only on a tiny handful of just 170 cases, yet we have embarked on the roll-out of the vaccine to millions of people. I remain personally unconvinced of that efficacy and am not impressed at all about that tiny sample size used to create this 90% effectiveness figure. Each to their own.
The Moderna vaccine trial was no different. It only saw 185 cases of Covid in the placebo group and 11 among the vaccinated group. These are tiny sample sizes to be drawing such life impacting conclusions from for vaccinating millions of people. Again source here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
(Original post by ER141)
8. We don't know how long immunity acquired through contact with the actual virus will last. The reason we need yearly flu vaccines is because it mutates so quickly. Covid already has several strains, and we don't know whether 'natural' immunity will protect against them, just as we aren't certain if the vaccines will. Having so many hosts may enable the virus to mutate quicker than other coronaviruses. Also the common cold can be caused by a coronavirus. Anyone here immune to common colds? No, because they mutate so quickly.
Again this is just Pharma mantra to support the pro-vax position. Natural immunity is good. Very good as proven by the numerous studies which are discussed in the link to the thread I provided earlier. It's also a fact that 20% to 50% of the population already had levels of immunity to Covid before Covid even came along. It was immunity gained from past bouts of colds, Flu and ILIs years before the advent of Covid, demonstrating admirably how important, strong and long lasting natural immunity is. Your attempts to ignore or play down natural immunity are extremely poor and disappointing TBH. Studies reveal all of this:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/
Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.14.095414v2?ijkey=8fbd1e241022a88f953235bd5f1dd7b7afb5fbd4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062349v2?ijkey=72f9dee829f26db0e9d1f25b2a7c7f4b61eb4827&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636479/
Past Colds and Flu provide T-Cell Immunity
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2
What you are doing here is trying to rob me and others of our innate natural immunity inheritance. This is the wonder and strength of a healthy human body. To be able to get infected with viruses, to mount good immune responses to them and to thereby learn how to recognise and deal with them in the future. Natural immunity creates important T-Cell and B-Cell immunity rather than just antibodies. Natural immunity to Covid is good, strong and lasting. It is appreciated that those "at risk" and vulnerable don't have the luxury of getting natural immunity and thus should take the vaccination route. Those who have now already recovered from Covid imho don't need to get vaccinated and it must always be a free choice.
(Original post by ER141)
9. "wE aLl KnOw ThAt mAnY oF tHoSe DeAtHs WeRe NoT cAuSeD bY cOvId." No. Yes, some of these people died from other things, but often those other things shouldn't have killed them (at least yet), but it did because they also had covid. Covid played a role in all of those deaths. It doesn't count if you have covid and then got shot in the head, those numbers aren't included. Most of those deaths would not have happened if covid wasn't around.
You're completely wrong. The definition of a "Covid Death" is any death that occurred where the deceased had been positive for Covid up to 28 days before death. There has also been a lot of double counting not least because the "unfit for purpose" PCR test kits pick up the same virus up to 90 days after first infection. So if I test you today and you are positive I can test you 90 days later and the test will still show you as positive when in fact you are not at all contagious. Because of this health workers are not tested more frequently than this. This is not up for discussion as it has been legally ruled, see below:
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
also here:
WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
and here's the UK Government statement on usage of the PCR Tests
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
"Immunocompetent staff, patients and residents who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR should be exempt from routine re-testing by PCR or LFD antigen tests (for example, repeated whole setting screening or screening prior to hospital discharge) within a period of 90 days from their initial illness onset or test (if asymptomatic) unless they develop new COVID-19 symptoms. This is because fragments of inactive virus can be persistently detected by PCR in respiratory tract samples following infection – long after a person has completed their isolation period and is no longer infectious."
(Original post by ER141)
10. What the hell is a vaccine junkie. That's not real. You cannot become addicted to vaccines, it's impossible, that's not how it works. Yes, people have vaccines every year, because they are GOOD FOR YOU and help society. I don't call people vegetable junkies if they eat their 5 a day. You can stop having the vaccine at any point, nobody can force you, though it is highly advisable that you have them.
Happy for you if you believe getting repeatedly vaccinated year on year is "good for you". By all means go and get the shots. I believe differently and science shows me that I have good cause to be cautious. Up until a few years ago Pharma were putting Thimerosal (50% Mercury) in vaccines until the public became fully aware and they abolished it. Science also now recognises that getting repeated flu shots lessens the effects of vaccines and leaves you vulnerable. Here's the science if you are interested in educating yourself:
The Oxford Academic - Journal Of Infectious Diseases
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/173/5554481
"there is accumulating evidence suggesting that repeat seasonal vaccination may, in specific instances,result in reduced antibody responses and diminished vaccine effectiveness. The so-called “Canadian Problem” was one of the most notorious recent examples of a possible increase
in risk of infection associated with prior vaccination. Skowronski et al reported that individuals who had been vaccinated in the 2008–2009 season, before the emergence of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, experienced higher rates of infection with the pandemic strain than individuals who were not vaccinated in the preceding year"
Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/6/E180.long
Study adds more data on effects of consecutive-year flu shots
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots
(Original post by ER141)
11. There is no evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than immunity due to the vaccine. Covid has been around less than a year. We just don't know how long immunity for either of these will last, but probably if you get covid, you can probably get it again in the future as the virus mutates. See point 8.
Again just wrong. You have again not done the research. Natural immunity is discussed in the thread link I gave above. Go read it. SARS-COV-2 is a member of the Coronavirus family of which there are many viruses. Past studies of other SARS viruses have shown that natural immunity gained lasts many years. Just read the links in the thread. There is every indication that natural immunity is strong and long lasting. There is as yet, no such indication that vaccine-derived immunity will be any where near as lasting and in fact the NHS is already planning to give people booster shots in Autumn and then on a yearly basis after that. That suggests vaccine-derived immunity is very short lived . . . or that they just want to create a very lucrative multi-billion dollar vaccine business for Covid going forward. Take your pick.
(Original post by ER141)
To conclude, vaccines are safe, we need higher levels of vaccination for herd immunity, anybody of any age and health can die of covid, and long covid is real and dangerous. I had more points in my original response to this poster but that was on the app and it didn't post for some reason.
More Project Fear waffle.
The vaccines are proven to be safe in the short term only. Long term testing and impacts HAVE NOT yet been assessed. It is what it is. A risk. A gamble. Herd immunity will be achieved by the combination of BOTH natural and vaccine-derived immunity. You could achieve herd immunity solely through natural immunity but the mortality would be unacceptable and that's why the most vulnerable need to get vaccinated. Anybody can die of Covid yes, and equally anybody can die of a lightning strike or being run over by a bus. Making glib scaremongering statements as you do helps none of us. What matters are the real life statistics relating to Covid mortality in different demographics. The young are extremely unlikely to develop serious Covid illness let alone die from it. That's a fact They have more chance of dying from a car accident than from Covid. By your scaremongering nonsense they should all sell their cars and never drive again !
It is not my intention in this reply to be antagonistic or disparaging but the fact is that 99% of your points are false and completely un-researched and little more than parroting the party line mantras. The facts matter. Without the facts we can not make informed decisions.
You haven't read the vaccine trial data, you haven't read the plethora of studies relating to natural immunity, to vaccine side effects and the like.
Yet here you are trying to sway hearts and minds on a forum without that essential reading and background.
Not good.
1. Even if you have mild/no symptoms you can still get long covid. So young people who have no symptoms could still develop heart problems in the future, for example
This is nothing but very lame "Project Fear" narrative.. Where are your facts and figures? You can also get struck by lightning and/or run over by a bus or have a car accident. What matters then is how likely you are to first get Covid at all and then to get "Long Covid". The answer is of course that you are extremely unlikely to get Long Covid. Some do get it, but they are a minority same with the number of people who die from Covid.
All you are doing here is trying to scaremonger and using that as some kind of argument for getting vaxed. It's poor strategy for such a debate.
It also needs to be understood that the "Long Covid" narrative is divisive. Most illnesses and conditions see people suffer long term issues. This includes Flu and Pneumonia and Whooping Cough and tons of other illnesses. But we haven't inventeded silly meme terms for "Long Flu" and "Long Pneumonia". It's just part of the whole scaremongering PR campaign. Is "Long Covid" any more prevalent than "Long Flu"? Do you have any facts and figures? Or are you just peddling fear?
(Original post by ER141)
2. The side effects experienced after the vaccine are not a disease, they are your immune system reacting to the vaccine. Not everyone has side effects, and that doesn't mean the vaccine isn't working, but if you have side effects like fever, aches, chills, then that is just your immune system. It feels horrible, but your life isn't in danger like it is when you have actual covid, because your body is under attack from real covid, not the vaccine.
Not sure why you raise this because I never disputed it. However it's a fact that a minority of people suffer much worse side effects from all vaccines and some of them are life changing such as the many cases of Narcolepsy seen with the previously rushed out Swine Flu vaccines and things like Guillian Barre Syndrome. No vaccine is 100% free from such impacts. It's a gamble. For the vulnerable that gamble makes sense due to their risks of getting serious Covid illness. For others I'd suggest the gamble isn't necessary to take.
(Original post by ER141)
3. Anyone can die from covid. Yes, it is more likely if you are old or vulnerable, but children with no comorbidities have also died. Even if it was only one group that died, why would you not want to help prevent that? Which brings me on to my next point:
Again you're peddling "Project Fear" to make an argument. It doesn't wash. How many people have actually died specifically because of Covid in the young demographics? Answer = extremely few indeed. In fact the total number of so-called "Covid Deaths" in the UK is some 146,000 which is just 0.2% of the population and the vast majority of those have been older people with multiple underlying health conditions. Sure, there ARE some young people that have actually died, but the number is ridiculously tiny to the extent that it is dwarfed by the number of young people who die in car accidents or any number of other causes.
(Original post by ER141)
4. Herd immunity. Lots of vulnerable people can't have the vaccine because their condition prevents it. Only by having the rest of the population vaccinated and thereby reducing transmission will these people be protected. And like you say, you can still get the virus if you have had the vaccine, though it is MUCH less likely, and having everyone vaccinated will reduce the spread and make it much safer.
This is a classic failed argument of pro-vaxxers. The refutation of it is extremely simple. The demographic you refer to, people who are immune-compromised and thus cannot have the vaccine, are a tiny minority of the total population. The notion of vaccinating the entire world just to try and save that tiny demographic is both flawed, inherently wrong and morally unacceptable. That's because in vaccinating millions or billions of people you WILL harm a certain percentage of those people from serious side effects of the vaccines. It's natural accepted collateral damage. Some people will get Guillian Barre Syndrome, some may get narcolepsy, some will die. Hence you will end up harming far more people than you actually try to save in that tiny immune-compromised demographic. Your point is an old one that just does not stand up to any scrutiny.
(Original post by ER141)
5. Of course we still have to wear masks. It is protecting OTHER people. Yeah, if you've had the vaccine you may get asymptomatic covid rather than full blown covid, but you may still be able to transmit it to others. Until the majority of the population has had the vaccine, we cannot completely ease the pandemic restrictions. So if you want to be able to take of your mask eventually, then have the vaccine and encourage others to do so. And in terms of still having to be swabbed, you will have to do that whether or not you have had the vaccine, but you are more likely to be prevented from doing things because you are more likely to get covid if you haven't been vaccinated. And international travel will require you to show that you have been vaccinated. And the swabs take less than 2 minutes and aren't that bad, hardly an inconvenience.
Another totally flawed argument. You are suggesting effectively that herd immunity can only be achieved via vaccination which is patently wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong and not remotely supported by virology. Natural immunity gained from having had Covid is as strong if not stronger than vaccine-derived immunity and longer lasting. This has been discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6978889
Herd immunity will therefore be achieved by the combination of those with natural immunity and those with vaccine-derived immunity. The pro-vax brigade simply want to try to ignore the former, want to bury it under the carpet or worse still try to disparage the enormous benefits of natural immunity. I find such traits disgusting and wholly out of accordance with science and no-one should be entertaining them. The restrictions we are all currently being subjected to (which themselves are wholly wrong) should be lifted when the vulnerable have all been vaccinated or have natural immunity. That's because they are the primary risk demographics, the groups in which the VAST MAJORITY of serious Covid illness and deaths occur. There is no benefit to society in locking down people who:
- are already naturally immune to Covid
- are tested and shown to be Covid negative
- are not remotely at risk of developing serious Covid illness
As for the swab tests again you make wholly glib statements. Most recently it has been revealed that test swabs have been sterilised using Ethylene Oxide which is a highly toxic substance, DNA altering and cancer causing. Getting swab tested is not something I am personally going to subject myself to. For that and other reasons, not least because the tests themselves are wholly unfit for purpose and produce ridiculously high levels of false positive and false negative results. As you state, the elitist global technocrats seeking to take over the world are going to try and cajole people into taking vaccines through attrition and removal of privileges like traveling by air or sea. Their desire and need to engage in such Orwellian behaviours for me speaks volumes about there being much more to these vaccines than Covid. Regardless I am quite happy to forego air and ship travel for the sake of preserving my health and/or life. Everyone needs to make their own decisions because one thing is VERY certain once you put whatever is in the vaccines in your body, there is no taking it out again.
(Original post by ER141)
6. The vaccine is safe. It has been tested in the same way that any other vaccine would be, just over a shorter time scale. This means trials going on in tandem rather than one after the other, so the length of the trials themselves were still sufficient.
Sorry but no that's a complete lie. Totally false. The vaccines have only been tested for short term safety. Long term safety testing has not yet been done and will be part of future testing as will other areas of testing. Other vaccines take years to complete development and testing, Covid vaccines have not been through that entire process. Here are the FACTS from Pfizer themselves:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
It states:
"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report."
"This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women"
"Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently, and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk groups, such as immunocompromised persons"
As can be seen a whole raft of testing areas HAVE NOT yet been completed and thus your statement about the vaccines having gone through all the normal checks is completely wrong. Don't worry though. lot's of people like yourself have not bothered to do the actual research and have simply swallowed the spoon-fed narratives peddled by pro-vax groups. Hopefully I have helped to make you better informed now.
(Original post by ER141)
"The emergency use authorisation is partly to allow everyone to get the vaccine, because they don't want to give people unnecessary drugs, but this one IS necessary. And in terms of long term effects, the vaccine is transient, it will be broken down by your body pretty soon after you develop immunity, the only thing that will remain is the antibodies."
The EUA is given because we are in a pandemic situation with a minority of people dying but who need the option of taking the lesser of two evils. That is to say that the "at risk" vulnerable people are in the unenviable situation of having to choose between a virus that might kill them and a vaccine that is not fully tested for safety. The EUA gives them the freedom to make that unenviable choice between those evils. Were we not in a pandemic situation these vaccines would NOT gain authorisation simple as. The rest of your statement there is just Pharma spiel. Pharma have a history of telling the public that their vaccines and medicines are safe when they in fact turn out not to be. Some examples:
The "Cutter Incident" Polio
https://devastatingdisasters.com/the-cutter-incident-1955/
Swine Flu Vaccine Victims
These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572
(Original post by ER141)
7. "only" 90% effective?! That's amazing coverage! Almost no vaccines are that effective! And then you say that covid reduces re-infection by 91%. So... the same number as the vaccine? And some of the vaccines are 95% effective.
You've gotten confused here. It is "Natural Immunity" that reduces re-infection by 91%
I agree that 90% efficacy is great for a vaccine but at the same time I am researched enough to know that:
1. What happens in vaccine trials is not the same as happens in real life scenarios
2. Pharma have a horrible history of fraud and falsifying trial data
3. The 90% efficacy rates are based on a ridiculously low number of Covid cases in the trials
Again you probably haven't bothered to do the research here and have just swallowed the media sensationalist figure of 90%
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, despite using around 44,000 trial volunteers, only saw around 200 actual cases of Covid. See here:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
In the case of Pfizer trial there were only 170 cases of Covid, 162 were in the placebo group, 8 were in the vaccinated group.
Whilst that result suggests a 90% effectiveness rate it is nevertheless based only on a tiny handful of just 170 cases, yet we have embarked on the roll-out of the vaccine to millions of people. I remain personally unconvinced of that efficacy and am not impressed at all about that tiny sample size used to create this 90% effectiveness figure. Each to their own.
The Moderna vaccine trial was no different. It only saw 185 cases of Covid in the placebo group and 11 among the vaccinated group. These are tiny sample sizes to be drawing such life impacting conclusions from for vaccinating millions of people. Again source here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
(Original post by ER141)
8. We don't know how long immunity acquired through contact with the actual virus will last. The reason we need yearly flu vaccines is because it mutates so quickly. Covid already has several strains, and we don't know whether 'natural' immunity will protect against them, just as we aren't certain if the vaccines will. Having so many hosts may enable the virus to mutate quicker than other coronaviruses. Also the common cold can be caused by a coronavirus. Anyone here immune to common colds? No, because they mutate so quickly.
Again this is just Pharma mantra to support the pro-vax position. Natural immunity is good. Very good as proven by the numerous studies which are discussed in the link to the thread I provided earlier. It's also a fact that 20% to 50% of the population already had levels of immunity to Covid before Covid even came along. It was immunity gained from past bouts of colds, Flu and ILIs years before the advent of Covid, demonstrating admirably how important, strong and long lasting natural immunity is. Your attempts to ignore or play down natural immunity are extremely poor and disappointing TBH. Studies reveal all of this:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/
Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.14.095414v2?ijkey=8fbd1e241022a88f953235bd5f1dd7b7afb5fbd4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062349v2?ijkey=72f9dee829f26db0e9d1f25b2a7c7f4b61eb4827&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636479/
Past Colds and Flu provide T-Cell Immunity
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2
What you are doing here is trying to rob me and others of our innate natural immunity inheritance. This is the wonder and strength of a healthy human body. To be able to get infected with viruses, to mount good immune responses to them and to thereby learn how to recognise and deal with them in the future. Natural immunity creates important T-Cell and B-Cell immunity rather than just antibodies. Natural immunity to Covid is good, strong and lasting. It is appreciated that those "at risk" and vulnerable don't have the luxury of getting natural immunity and thus should take the vaccination route. Those who have now already recovered from Covid imho don't need to get vaccinated and it must always be a free choice.
(Original post by ER141)
9. "wE aLl KnOw ThAt mAnY oF tHoSe DeAtHs WeRe NoT cAuSeD bY cOvId." No. Yes, some of these people died from other things, but often those other things shouldn't have killed them (at least yet), but it did because they also had covid. Covid played a role in all of those deaths. It doesn't count if you have covid and then got shot in the head, those numbers aren't included. Most of those deaths would not have happened if covid wasn't around.
You're completely wrong. The definition of a "Covid Death" is any death that occurred where the deceased had been positive for Covid up to 28 days before death. There has also been a lot of double counting not least because the "unfit for purpose" PCR test kits pick up the same virus up to 90 days after first infection. So if I test you today and you are positive I can test you 90 days later and the test will still show you as positive when in fact you are not at all contagious. Because of this health workers are not tested more frequently than this. This is not up for discussion as it has been legally ruled, see below:
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
also here:
WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
and here's the UK Government statement on usage of the PCR Tests
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
"Immunocompetent staff, patients and residents who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR should be exempt from routine re-testing by PCR or LFD antigen tests (for example, repeated whole setting screening or screening prior to hospital discharge) within a period of 90 days from their initial illness onset or test (if asymptomatic) unless they develop new COVID-19 symptoms. This is because fragments of inactive virus can be persistently detected by PCR in respiratory tract samples following infection – long after a person has completed their isolation period and is no longer infectious."
(Original post by ER141)
10. What the hell is a vaccine junkie. That's not real. You cannot become addicted to vaccines, it's impossible, that's not how it works. Yes, people have vaccines every year, because they are GOOD FOR YOU and help society. I don't call people vegetable junkies if they eat their 5 a day. You can stop having the vaccine at any point, nobody can force you, though it is highly advisable that you have them.
Happy for you if you believe getting repeatedly vaccinated year on year is "good for you". By all means go and get the shots. I believe differently and science shows me that I have good cause to be cautious. Up until a few years ago Pharma were putting Thimerosal (50% Mercury) in vaccines until the public became fully aware and they abolished it. Science also now recognises that getting repeated flu shots lessens the effects of vaccines and leaves you vulnerable. Here's the science if you are interested in educating yourself:
The Oxford Academic - Journal Of Infectious Diseases
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/173/5554481
"there is accumulating evidence suggesting that repeat seasonal vaccination may, in specific instances,result in reduced antibody responses and diminished vaccine effectiveness. The so-called “Canadian Problem” was one of the most notorious recent examples of a possible increase
in risk of infection associated with prior vaccination. Skowronski et al reported that individuals who had been vaccinated in the 2008–2009 season, before the emergence of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, experienced higher rates of infection with the pandemic strain than individuals who were not vaccinated in the preceding year"
Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/6/E180.long
Study adds more data on effects of consecutive-year flu shots
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots
(Original post by ER141)
11. There is no evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than immunity due to the vaccine. Covid has been around less than a year. We just don't know how long immunity for either of these will last, but probably if you get covid, you can probably get it again in the future as the virus mutates. See point 8.
Again just wrong. You have again not done the research. Natural immunity is discussed in the thread link I gave above. Go read it. SARS-COV-2 is a member of the Coronavirus family of which there are many viruses. Past studies of other SARS viruses have shown that natural immunity gained lasts many years. Just read the links in the thread. There is every indication that natural immunity is strong and long lasting. There is as yet, no such indication that vaccine-derived immunity will be any where near as lasting and in fact the NHS is already planning to give people booster shots in Autumn and then on a yearly basis after that. That suggests vaccine-derived immunity is very short lived . . . or that they just want to create a very lucrative multi-billion dollar vaccine business for Covid going forward. Take your pick.
(Original post by ER141)
To conclude, vaccines are safe, we need higher levels of vaccination for herd immunity, anybody of any age and health can die of covid, and long covid is real and dangerous. I had more points in my original response to this poster but that was on the app and it didn't post for some reason.
More Project Fear waffle.
The vaccines are proven to be safe in the short term only. Long term testing and impacts HAVE NOT yet been assessed. It is what it is. A risk. A gamble. Herd immunity will be achieved by the combination of BOTH natural and vaccine-derived immunity. You could achieve herd immunity solely through natural immunity but the mortality would be unacceptable and that's why the most vulnerable need to get vaccinated. Anybody can die of Covid yes, and equally anybody can die of a lightning strike or being run over by a bus. Making glib scaremongering statements as you do helps none of us. What matters are the real life statistics relating to Covid mortality in different demographics. The young are extremely unlikely to develop serious Covid illness let alone die from it. That's a fact They have more chance of dying from a car accident than from Covid. By your scaremongering nonsense they should all sell their cars and never drive again !
It is not my intention in this reply to be antagonistic or disparaging but the fact is that 99% of your points are false and completely un-researched and little more than parroting the party line mantras. The facts matter. Without the facts we can not make informed decisions.
You haven't read the vaccine trial data, you haven't read the plethora of studies relating to natural immunity, to vaccine side effects and the like.
Yet here you are trying to sway hearts and minds on a forum without that essential reading and background.
Not good.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
(Original post by ER141)
1. Even if you have mild/no symptoms you can still get long covid. So young people who have no symptoms could still develop heart problems in the future, for example
This is nothing but very lame "Project Fear" narrative.. Where are your facts and figures? You can also get struck by lightning and/or run over by a bus or have a car accident. What matters then is how likely you are to first get Covid at all and then to get "Long Covid". The answer is of course that you are extremely unlikely to get Long Covid. Some do get it, but they are a minority same with the number of people who die from Covid.
All you are doing here is trying to scaremonger and using that as some kind of argument for getting vaxed. It's poor strategy for such a debate.
It also needs to be understood that the "Long Covid" narrative is divisive. Most illnesses and conditions see people suffer long term issues. This includes Flu and Pneumonia and Whooping Cough and tons of other illnesses. But we haven't inventeded silly meme terms for "Long Flu" and "Long Pneumonia". It's just part of the whole scaremongering PR campaign. Is "Long Covid" any more prevalent than "Long Flu"? Do you have any facts and figures? Or are you just peddling fear?
(Original post by ER141)
2. The side effects experienced after the vaccine are not a disease, they are your immune system reacting to the vaccine. Not everyone has side effects, and that doesn't mean the vaccine isn't working, but if you have side effects like fever, aches, chills, then that is just your immune system. It feels horrible, but your life isn't in danger like it is when you have actual covid, because your body is under attack from real covid, not the vaccine.
Not sure why you raise this because I never disputed it. However it's a fact that a minority of people suffer much worse side effects from all vaccines and some of them are life changing such as the many cases of Narcolepsy seen with the previously rushed out Swine Flu vaccines and things like Guillian Barre Syndrome. No vaccine is 100% free from such impacts. It's a gamble. For the vulnerable that gamble makes sense due to their risks of getting serious Covid illness. For others I'd suggest the gamble isn't necessary to take.
(Original post by ER141)
3. Anyone can die from covid. Yes, it is more likely if you are old or vulnerable, but children with no comorbidities have also died. Even if it was only one group that died, why would you not want to help prevent that? Which brings me on to my next point:
Again you're peddling "Project Fear" to make an argument. It doesn't wash. How many people have actually died specifically because of Covid in the young demographics? Answer = extremely few indeed. In fact the total number of so-called "Covid Deaths" in the UK is some 146,000 which is just 0.2% of the population and the vast majority of those have been older people with multiple underlying health conditions. Sure, there ARE some young people that have actually died, but the number is ridiculously tiny to the extent that it is dwarfed by the number of young people who die in car accidents or any number of other causes.
(Original post by ER141)
4. Herd immunity. Lots of vulnerable people can't have the vaccine because their condition prevents it. Only by having the rest of the population vaccinated and thereby reducing transmission will these people be protected. And like you say, you can still get the virus if you have had the vaccine, though it is MUCH less likely, and having everyone vaccinated will reduce the spread and make it much safer.
This is a classic failed argument of pro-vaxxers. The refutation of it is extremely simply. The demographic you refer to, people who are immune-compromised and thus cannot have the vaccine, are a tiny minority of the total population. The notion of vaccinated the entire world just to try and save that tiny demographic is both flawed, inherently wrong and morally unacceptable. That's because in vaccinating millions or billions of people you WILL harm a certain percentage of those people from serious side effects of the vaccines. It's natural accepted collateral damage. Some people will get Guillian Barre Syndrome, some may get narcolepsy, some will die. Hence you will end up harming far more people than you actually try to save in that tiny immune-compromised demographic. Your point is an old one that just does not stand up to any scrutiny.
(Original post by ER141)
5. Of course we still have to wear masks. It is protecting OTHER people. Yeah, if you've had the vaccine you may get asymptomatic covid rather than full blown covid, but you may still be able to transmit it to others. Until the majority of the population has had the vaccine, we cannot completely ease the pandemic restrictions. So if you want to be able to take of your mask eventually, then have the vaccine and encourage others to do so. And in terms of still having to be swabbed, you will have to do that whether or not you have had the vaccine, but you are more likely to be prevented from doing things because you are more likely to get covid if you haven't been vaccinated. And international travel will require you to show that you have been vaccinated. And the swabs take less than 2 minutes and aren't that bad, hardly an inconvenience.
Another totally flawed argument. You are suggesting effectively that herd immunity can only be achieved via vaccination which is patently wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong and not remotely supported by virology. Natural immunity gained from having had Covid is as strong if not stronger than vaccine-derived immunity and longer lasting. This has been discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6978889
Herd immunity will therefore be achieved by the combination of those with natural immunity and those with vaccine-derived immunity. The pro-vax brigade simply want to try to ignore the former, want to bury it under the carpet or worse still try to disparage the enormous benefits of natural immunity. I find such traits disgusting and wholly out of accordance with science and no-one should be entertaining them. The restrictions we are all currently being subjected to (which themselves are wholly wrong) should be lifted when the vulnerable have all been vaccinated or have natural immunity. That's because they are the primary risk demographics, the groups in which the VAST MAJORITY of serious Covid illness and deaths occur. There is no benefit to society in locking down people who:
- are already naturally immune to Covid
- are tested and shown to be Covid negative
- are not remotely at risk of developing serious Covid illness
As for the swab tests again you make wholly glib statements. Most recently it has been revealed that test swabs have been sterilised using Ethylene Oxide which is a highly toxic substance, DNA altering and cancer causing. Getting swab tested is not something I am personally going to subject myself to. For that and other reasons, not least because the tests themselves are wholly unfit for purpose and produce ridiculously high levels of false positive and false negative results. As you state, the elitist global technocrats seeking to take over the world are going to try and cajole people into taking vaccines through attrition and removal of privileges like traveling by air or sea. Their desire and need to engage in such Orwellian behaviours for me speaks volumes about there being much more to these vaccines than Covid. Regardless I am quite happy to forego air and ship travel for the sake of preserving my health and/or life. Everyone needs to make their own decisions because one thing is VERY certain once you put whatever is in the vaccines in your body, there is no taking it out again.
(Original post by ER141)
6. The vaccine is safe. It has been tested in the same way that any other vaccine would be, just over a shorter time scale. This means trials going on in tandem rather than one after the other, so the length of the trials themselves were still sufficient.
Sorry but no that's a complete lie. Totally false. The vaccines have only been tested for short term safety. Long term safety testing has not yet been done and will be part of future testing as will other areas of testing. Other vaccines take years to complete development and testing, Covid vaccines have not been through that entire process. Here are the FACTS from Pfizer themselves:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
It states:
"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be
reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report."
"This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women"
"Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently,
and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk
groups, such as immunocompromised persons"
As can be seen a whole raft of testing areas HAVE NOT yet been completed and thus your statement about the vaccines having gone through all the normal checks is completely wrong. Don't worry though. lot's of people like yourself have not bothered to do the actual research and have simply swallowed the spoon-fed narratives peddled by pro-vax groups. Hopefully I have helped to make you better informed now.
(Original post by ER141)
"The emergency use authorisation is partly to allow everyone to get the vaccine, because they don't want to give people unnecessary drugs, but this one IS necessary. And in terms of long term effects, the vaccine is transient, it will be broken down by your body pretty soon after you develop immunity, the only thing that will remain is the antibodies."
The EUA is given because we are in a pandemic situation with a minority of people dying but who need the option of taking the lesser of two evils. That is to say that the "at risk" vulnerable people are in the unenviable situation of having to choose between a virus that might kill them and a vaccine that is not fully tested for safety. The EUA gives them the freedom to make that unenviable choice between those evils. Were we not in a pandemic situation these vaccines would NOT gain authorisation simple as. the rest of your statement there is just Pharma spiel. Pharma have a history of telling the public that their vaccines and medicines are safe when they in fact turn out not to be. Some examples:
The "Cutter Incident" Polio
https://devastatingdisasters.com/the-cutter-incident-1955/
Swine Flu Vaccine Victims
These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572
(Original post by ER141)
7. "only" 90% effective?! That's amazing coverage! Almost no vaccines are that effective! And then you say that covid reduces re-infection by 91%. So... the same number as the vaccine? And some of the vaccines are 95% effective.
You've gotten confused here. It is "Natural Immunity" that reduces re-infection by 91%
I agree that 90% efficacy is great for a vaccine but at the same time I am researched enough to kow that:
1. What happens in vaccine trials is not the same as happens in real life scenarios
2. Pharma have a horrible history of fraud and falsifying trial data
3. The 90% efficacy rates are based on a ridiculously low number of Covid cases in the trials
Again you probably haven't bother to do the research here and have just swallowed the media sensationalist figure of 90%
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, despite using around 44,000 trial volunteers, only saw around 200 actual cases of Covid. See here:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
In the case of Pfizer trial there were only 170 cases of Covid, 165 were in the placebo group, 8 were in the vaccinated group.
Whilst that result suggests a 90% effectiveness rate it is nevertheless based only on a tiny handful of just 170 cases, yet we have embarked on the roll-out of the vaccine to millions of people. I remain personally unconvinced of that efficacy and am not impressed at all about that tiny sample size used to create this 90% effectiveness figure. Each to their own.
The Moderna vaccine trial was no different. It only saw 185 cases of Covid in the placebo group and 11 among the vaccinated group. These are tiny sample sizes to be drawing such life impacting conclusions from for vaccinating millions of people. Again source here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
(Original post by ER141)
8. We don't know how long immunity acquired through contact with the actual virus will last. The reason we need yearly flu vaccines is because it mutates so quickly. Covid already has several strains, and we don't know whether 'natural' immunity will protect against them, just as we aren't certain if the vaccines will. Having so many hosts may enable the virus to mutate quicker than other coronaviruses. Also the common cold can be caused by a coronavirus. Anyone here immune to common colds? No, because they mutate so quickly.
Again this is just Pharma mantra to support the pro-vax position. Natural immunity is good. Very good as proven by the numerous studies which are discussed in the link to the thread I provided earlier. It's also a fact that 20% to 50% of the population already had levels of immunity to Covid before Covid even came along. It was immunity gained from past bouts of colds, Flu and ILIs years before the advent of Covid, demonstrating admirably how important, strong and long lasting natural immunity is. Your attempts to ignore or play down natural immunity are extremely poor and disappointing TBH. Studies reveal all of this:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/
Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.14.095414v2?ijkey=8fbd1e241022a88f953235bd5f1dd7b7afb5fbd4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062349v2?ijkey=72f9dee829f26db0e9d1f25b2a7c7f4b61eb4827&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636479/
Past Colds and Flu provide T-Cell Immunity
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2
What you are doing here is trying to rob me and others of our innate natural immunity inheritance. This is the wonder and strength of a health human body. To be able to get infected with viruses, to mount good immune responses to them and to thereby learn how to recognise and deal with them in the future. Natural immunity creates important T-Cell and B-Cell immunity rather than just antibodies. Natural immunity to Covid is good, strong and lasting. It is appreciated that those "at risk" and vulnerable don't have the luxury of getting natural immunity and thus should take the vaccination route. Those who have now already recovered from Covid imho don't need to get vaccinated and it must always be a free choice.
(Original post by ER141)
9. "wE aLl KnOw ThAt mAnY oF tHoSe DeAtHs WeRe NoT cAuSeD bY cOvId." No. Yes, some of these people died from other things, but often those other things shouldn't have killed them (at least yet), but it did because they also had covid. Covid played a role in all of those deaths. It doesn't count if you have covid and then got shot in the head, those numbers aren't included. Most of those deaths would not have happened if covid wasn't around.
You're completely wrong. The definition of a "Covid Death" is any death that occurred where the deceased had been positive for Covid up to 28 days before death. There has also been a lot of double counting not least because the "unfit for purpose" PCR test kits pick up the same virus up to 90 days after first infection. So if I test you today and you are positive I can test you 90 days later and the test will still show you as positive when in fact you are not at all contagious. Because of this health workers are not tested more frequently than this. This is not up for discussion as it has been legally ruled, see below:
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
also here:
WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
and here's the UK Government statement on usage of the PCR Tests
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
"Immunocompetent staff, patients and residents who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR should be exempt from routine re-testing by PCR or LFD antigen tests (for example, repeated whole setting screening or screening prior to hospital discharge) within a period of 90 days from their initial illness onset or test (if asymptomatic) unless they develop new COVID-19 symptoms. This is because fragments of inactive virus can be persistently detected by PCR in respiratory tract samples following infection – long after a person has completed their isolation period and is no
longer infectious."
(Original post by ER141)
10. What the hell is a vaccine junkie. That's not real. You cannot become addicted to vaccines, it's impossible, that's not how it works. Yes, people have vaccines every year, because they are GOOD FOR YOU and help society. I don't call people vegetable junkies if they eat their 5 a day. You can stop having the vaccine at any point, nobody can force you, though it is highly advisable that you have them.
Happy for you if you believe getting repeatedly vaccinated year on year is "good for you". By all means go and get the shots. I believe differently and science shows me that I have good cause to be cautious. Up until a few years ago Pharma were putting Thimerosal (50% Mercury) in vaccines until the public became fully aware and they abolished it. Science also now recognises that getting repeated flu shots lessens the effects of vaccines and leaves you vulnerable. Here's the science if you are interested in educating yourself:
The Oxford Academic - Journal Of Infectious Diseases
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/173/5554481
"there is accumulating evidence suggesting that repeat seasonal vaccination may, in specific instances,result in reduced antibody responses and diminished vaccine effectiveness. The so-called “Canadian Problem” was one of the most notorious recent examples of a possible increase
in risk of infection associated with prior vaccination. Skowronski et al reported that individuals who had been vaccinated in the 2008–2009 season, before the emergence of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, experienced higher rates of infection with the pandemic strain than individuals who were not vaccinated in the preceding year"
Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/6/E180.long
Study adds more data on effects of consecutive-year flu shots
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots
(Original post by ER141)
11. There is no evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than immunity due to the vaccine. Covid has been around less than a year. We just don't know how long immunity for either of these will last, but probably if you get covid, you can probably get it again in the future as the virus mutates. See point 8.
Again just wrong. You have again not done the research. Natural immunity is discussed in the thread link I gave above. Go read it. SARS-COV-2 is a member of the Coronavirus family of which there are many viruses. Past studies of other SARS viruses have shown that natural immunity gained lasts many years. Just read the links in the thread. There is every indication that natural immunity is strong and long lasting. There is as yet, no such indication that vaccine-derived immunity will be any where near as lasting and in fact the NHS is already planning to give people booster shots in Autumn and then on a yearly basis after that. That suggests vaccine-derived immunity is very short lived . . . or that they just want to create a very lucrative multi-billion dollar vaccine business for Covid going forward. Take your pick.
(Original post by ER141)
To conclude, vaccines are safe, we need higher levels of vaccination for herd immunity, anybody of any age and health can die of covid, and long covid is real and dangerous. I had more points in my original response to this poster but that was on the app and it didn't post for some reason.
More Project Fear waffle.
The vaccines are proven to be safe in the short term only. Long term testing and impacts HAVE NOT yet been assessed. It is what it is. A risk. A gamble. Herd immunity will be achieved by the combination of BOTH natural and vaccine-derived immunity. You could achieve herd immunity solely through natural immunity but the mortality would be unacceptable and that's why the most vulnerable need to get vaccinated. Anybody can die of Covid yes, and equally anybody can die of a lightning strike or being run over by a bus. Making glib scaremongering statements as you do helps none of us. What matters are the real life statistics relating to Covid mortality in different demographics. The young are extremely unlikely to develop serious Covid illness let alone die from it. That's a fact They have more chance of dying from a car accident than from Covid. By your scaremongering nonsense they should all sell their cars and never drive again !
It is not my intention in this reply to be antagonistic or disparaging but the fact is that 99% of your points are false and completely un-researched and little more than parroting the party line mantras. The facts matter. Without the facts we can not make informed decisions.
You haven't read the vaccine trial data, you haven't read the plethora of studies relating to natural immunity, to vaccine side effects and the like.
Yet here you are trying to sway hearts and minds on a forum without that essential reading and background.
Not good.
1. Even if you have mild/no symptoms you can still get long covid. So young people who have no symptoms could still develop heart problems in the future, for example
This is nothing but very lame "Project Fear" narrative.. Where are your facts and figures? You can also get struck by lightning and/or run over by a bus or have a car accident. What matters then is how likely you are to first get Covid at all and then to get "Long Covid". The answer is of course that you are extremely unlikely to get Long Covid. Some do get it, but they are a minority same with the number of people who die from Covid.
All you are doing here is trying to scaremonger and using that as some kind of argument for getting vaxed. It's poor strategy for such a debate.
It also needs to be understood that the "Long Covid" narrative is divisive. Most illnesses and conditions see people suffer long term issues. This includes Flu and Pneumonia and Whooping Cough and tons of other illnesses. But we haven't inventeded silly meme terms for "Long Flu" and "Long Pneumonia". It's just part of the whole scaremongering PR campaign. Is "Long Covid" any more prevalent than "Long Flu"? Do you have any facts and figures? Or are you just peddling fear?
(Original post by ER141)
2. The side effects experienced after the vaccine are not a disease, they are your immune system reacting to the vaccine. Not everyone has side effects, and that doesn't mean the vaccine isn't working, but if you have side effects like fever, aches, chills, then that is just your immune system. It feels horrible, but your life isn't in danger like it is when you have actual covid, because your body is under attack from real covid, not the vaccine.
Not sure why you raise this because I never disputed it. However it's a fact that a minority of people suffer much worse side effects from all vaccines and some of them are life changing such as the many cases of Narcolepsy seen with the previously rushed out Swine Flu vaccines and things like Guillian Barre Syndrome. No vaccine is 100% free from such impacts. It's a gamble. For the vulnerable that gamble makes sense due to their risks of getting serious Covid illness. For others I'd suggest the gamble isn't necessary to take.
(Original post by ER141)
3. Anyone can die from covid. Yes, it is more likely if you are old or vulnerable, but children with no comorbidities have also died. Even if it was only one group that died, why would you not want to help prevent that? Which brings me on to my next point:
Again you're peddling "Project Fear" to make an argument. It doesn't wash. How many people have actually died specifically because of Covid in the young demographics? Answer = extremely few indeed. In fact the total number of so-called "Covid Deaths" in the UK is some 146,000 which is just 0.2% of the population and the vast majority of those have been older people with multiple underlying health conditions. Sure, there ARE some young people that have actually died, but the number is ridiculously tiny to the extent that it is dwarfed by the number of young people who die in car accidents or any number of other causes.
(Original post by ER141)
4. Herd immunity. Lots of vulnerable people can't have the vaccine because their condition prevents it. Only by having the rest of the population vaccinated and thereby reducing transmission will these people be protected. And like you say, you can still get the virus if you have had the vaccine, though it is MUCH less likely, and having everyone vaccinated will reduce the spread and make it much safer.
This is a classic failed argument of pro-vaxxers. The refutation of it is extremely simply. The demographic you refer to, people who are immune-compromised and thus cannot have the vaccine, are a tiny minority of the total population. The notion of vaccinated the entire world just to try and save that tiny demographic is both flawed, inherently wrong and morally unacceptable. That's because in vaccinating millions or billions of people you WILL harm a certain percentage of those people from serious side effects of the vaccines. It's natural accepted collateral damage. Some people will get Guillian Barre Syndrome, some may get narcolepsy, some will die. Hence you will end up harming far more people than you actually try to save in that tiny immune-compromised demographic. Your point is an old one that just does not stand up to any scrutiny.
(Original post by ER141)
5. Of course we still have to wear masks. It is protecting OTHER people. Yeah, if you've had the vaccine you may get asymptomatic covid rather than full blown covid, but you may still be able to transmit it to others. Until the majority of the population has had the vaccine, we cannot completely ease the pandemic restrictions. So if you want to be able to take of your mask eventually, then have the vaccine and encourage others to do so. And in terms of still having to be swabbed, you will have to do that whether or not you have had the vaccine, but you are more likely to be prevented from doing things because you are more likely to get covid if you haven't been vaccinated. And international travel will require you to show that you have been vaccinated. And the swabs take less than 2 minutes and aren't that bad, hardly an inconvenience.
Another totally flawed argument. You are suggesting effectively that herd immunity can only be achieved via vaccination which is patently wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong and not remotely supported by virology. Natural immunity gained from having had Covid is as strong if not stronger than vaccine-derived immunity and longer lasting. This has been discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6978889
Herd immunity will therefore be achieved by the combination of those with natural immunity and those with vaccine-derived immunity. The pro-vax brigade simply want to try to ignore the former, want to bury it under the carpet or worse still try to disparage the enormous benefits of natural immunity. I find such traits disgusting and wholly out of accordance with science and no-one should be entertaining them. The restrictions we are all currently being subjected to (which themselves are wholly wrong) should be lifted when the vulnerable have all been vaccinated or have natural immunity. That's because they are the primary risk demographics, the groups in which the VAST MAJORITY of serious Covid illness and deaths occur. There is no benefit to society in locking down people who:
- are already naturally immune to Covid
- are tested and shown to be Covid negative
- are not remotely at risk of developing serious Covid illness
As for the swab tests again you make wholly glib statements. Most recently it has been revealed that test swabs have been sterilised using Ethylene Oxide which is a highly toxic substance, DNA altering and cancer causing. Getting swab tested is not something I am personally going to subject myself to. For that and other reasons, not least because the tests themselves are wholly unfit for purpose and produce ridiculously high levels of false positive and false negative results. As you state, the elitist global technocrats seeking to take over the world are going to try and cajole people into taking vaccines through attrition and removal of privileges like traveling by air or sea. Their desire and need to engage in such Orwellian behaviours for me speaks volumes about there being much more to these vaccines than Covid. Regardless I am quite happy to forego air and ship travel for the sake of preserving my health and/or life. Everyone needs to make their own decisions because one thing is VERY certain once you put whatever is in the vaccines in your body, there is no taking it out again.
(Original post by ER141)
6. The vaccine is safe. It has been tested in the same way that any other vaccine would be, just over a shorter time scale. This means trials going on in tandem rather than one after the other, so the length of the trials themselves were still sufficient.
Sorry but no that's a complete lie. Totally false. The vaccines have only been tested for short term safety. Long term safety testing has not yet been done and will be part of future testing as will other areas of testing. Other vaccines take years to complete development and testing, Covid vaccines have not been through that entire process. Here are the FACTS from Pfizer themselves:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
It states:
"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be
reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report."
"This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women"
"Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently,
and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk
groups, such as immunocompromised persons"
As can be seen a whole raft of testing areas HAVE NOT yet been completed and thus your statement about the vaccines having gone through all the normal checks is completely wrong. Don't worry though. lot's of people like yourself have not bothered to do the actual research and have simply swallowed the spoon-fed narratives peddled by pro-vax groups. Hopefully I have helped to make you better informed now.
(Original post by ER141)
"The emergency use authorisation is partly to allow everyone to get the vaccine, because they don't want to give people unnecessary drugs, but this one IS necessary. And in terms of long term effects, the vaccine is transient, it will be broken down by your body pretty soon after you develop immunity, the only thing that will remain is the antibodies."
The EUA is given because we are in a pandemic situation with a minority of people dying but who need the option of taking the lesser of two evils. That is to say that the "at risk" vulnerable people are in the unenviable situation of having to choose between a virus that might kill them and a vaccine that is not fully tested for safety. The EUA gives them the freedom to make that unenviable choice between those evils. Were we not in a pandemic situation these vaccines would NOT gain authorisation simple as. the rest of your statement there is just Pharma spiel. Pharma have a history of telling the public that their vaccines and medicines are safe when they in fact turn out not to be. Some examples:
The "Cutter Incident" Polio
https://devastatingdisasters.com/the-cutter-incident-1955/
Swine Flu Vaccine Victims
These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe
Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572
(Original post by ER141)
7. "only" 90% effective?! That's amazing coverage! Almost no vaccines are that effective! And then you say that covid reduces re-infection by 91%. So... the same number as the vaccine? And some of the vaccines are 95% effective.
You've gotten confused here. It is "Natural Immunity" that reduces re-infection by 91%
I agree that 90% efficacy is great for a vaccine but at the same time I am researched enough to kow that:
1. What happens in vaccine trials is not the same as happens in real life scenarios
2. Pharma have a horrible history of fraud and falsifying trial data
3. The 90% efficacy rates are based on a ridiculously low number of Covid cases in the trials
Again you probably haven't bother to do the research here and have just swallowed the media sensationalist figure of 90%
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, despite using around 44,000 trial volunteers, only saw around 200 actual cases of Covid. See here:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
In the case of Pfizer trial there were only 170 cases of Covid, 165 were in the placebo group, 8 were in the vaccinated group.
Whilst that result suggests a 90% effectiveness rate it is nevertheless based only on a tiny handful of just 170 cases, yet we have embarked on the roll-out of the vaccine to millions of people. I remain personally unconvinced of that efficacy and am not impressed at all about that tiny sample size used to create this 90% effectiveness figure. Each to their own.
The Moderna vaccine trial was no different. It only saw 185 cases of Covid in the placebo group and 11 among the vaccinated group. These are tiny sample sizes to be drawing such life impacting conclusions from for vaccinating millions of people. Again source here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
(Original post by ER141)
8. We don't know how long immunity acquired through contact with the actual virus will last. The reason we need yearly flu vaccines is because it mutates so quickly. Covid already has several strains, and we don't know whether 'natural' immunity will protect against them, just as we aren't certain if the vaccines will. Having so many hosts may enable the virus to mutate quicker than other coronaviruses. Also the common cold can be caused by a coronavirus. Anyone here immune to common colds? No, because they mutate so quickly.
Again this is just Pharma mantra to support the pro-vax position. Natural immunity is good. Very good as proven by the numerous studies which are discussed in the link to the thread I provided earlier. It's also a fact that 20% to 50% of the population already had levels of immunity to Covid before Covid even came along. It was immunity gained from past bouts of colds, Flu and ILIs years before the advent of Covid, demonstrating admirably how important, strong and long lasting natural immunity is. Your attempts to ignore or play down natural immunity are extremely poor and disappointing TBH. Studies reveal all of this:
Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/
Pre-existing and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.14.095414v2?ijkey=8fbd1e241022a88f953235bd5f1dd7b7afb5fbd4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062349v2?ijkey=72f9dee829f26db0e9d1f25b2a7c7f4b61eb4827&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636479/
Past Colds and Flu provide T-Cell Immunity
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2
What you are doing here is trying to rob me and others of our innate natural immunity inheritance. This is the wonder and strength of a health human body. To be able to get infected with viruses, to mount good immune responses to them and to thereby learn how to recognise and deal with them in the future. Natural immunity creates important T-Cell and B-Cell immunity rather than just antibodies. Natural immunity to Covid is good, strong and lasting. It is appreciated that those "at risk" and vulnerable don't have the luxury of getting natural immunity and thus should take the vaccination route. Those who have now already recovered from Covid imho don't need to get vaccinated and it must always be a free choice.
(Original post by ER141)
9. "wE aLl KnOw ThAt mAnY oF tHoSe DeAtHs WeRe NoT cAuSeD bY cOvId." No. Yes, some of these people died from other things, but often those other things shouldn't have killed them (at least yet), but it did because they also had covid. Covid played a role in all of those deaths. It doesn't count if you have covid and then got shot in the head, those numbers aren't included. Most of those deaths would not have happened if covid wasn't around.
You're completely wrong. The definition of a "Covid Death" is any death that occurred where the deceased had been positive for Covid up to 28 days before death. There has also been a lot of double counting not least because the "unfit for purpose" PCR test kits pick up the same virus up to 90 days after first infection. So if I test you today and you are positive I can test you 90 days later and the test will still show you as positive when in fact you are not at all contagious. Because of this health workers are not tested more frequently than this. This is not up for discussion as it has been legally ruled, see below:
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
also here:
WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
and here's the UK Government statement on usage of the PCR Tests
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
"Immunocompetent staff, patients and residents who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR should be exempt from routine re-testing by PCR or LFD antigen tests (for example, repeated whole setting screening or screening prior to hospital discharge) within a period of 90 days from their initial illness onset or test (if asymptomatic) unless they develop new COVID-19 symptoms. This is because fragments of inactive virus can be persistently detected by PCR in respiratory tract samples following infection – long after a person has completed their isolation period and is no
longer infectious."
(Original post by ER141)
10. What the hell is a vaccine junkie. That's not real. You cannot become addicted to vaccines, it's impossible, that's not how it works. Yes, people have vaccines every year, because they are GOOD FOR YOU and help society. I don't call people vegetable junkies if they eat their 5 a day. You can stop having the vaccine at any point, nobody can force you, though it is highly advisable that you have them.
Happy for you if you believe getting repeatedly vaccinated year on year is "good for you". By all means go and get the shots. I believe differently and science shows me that I have good cause to be cautious. Up until a few years ago Pharma were putting Thimerosal (50% Mercury) in vaccines until the public became fully aware and they abolished it. Science also now recognises that getting repeated flu shots lessens the effects of vaccines and leaves you vulnerable. Here's the science if you are interested in educating yourself:
The Oxford Academic - Journal Of Infectious Diseases
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/173/5554481
"there is accumulating evidence suggesting that repeat seasonal vaccination may, in specific instances,result in reduced antibody responses and diminished vaccine effectiveness. The so-called “Canadian Problem” was one of the most notorious recent examples of a possible increase
in risk of infection associated with prior vaccination. Skowronski et al reported that individuals who had been vaccinated in the 2008–2009 season, before the emergence of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, experienced higher rates of infection with the pandemic strain than individuals who were not vaccinated in the preceding year"
Repeated flu shots may blunt effectiveness
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/6/E180.long
Study adds more data on effects of consecutive-year flu shots
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots
(Original post by ER141)
11. There is no evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than immunity due to the vaccine. Covid has been around less than a year. We just don't know how long immunity for either of these will last, but probably if you get covid, you can probably get it again in the future as the virus mutates. See point 8.
Again just wrong. You have again not done the research. Natural immunity is discussed in the thread link I gave above. Go read it. SARS-COV-2 is a member of the Coronavirus family of which there are many viruses. Past studies of other SARS viruses have shown that natural immunity gained lasts many years. Just read the links in the thread. There is every indication that natural immunity is strong and long lasting. There is as yet, no such indication that vaccine-derived immunity will be any where near as lasting and in fact the NHS is already planning to give people booster shots in Autumn and then on a yearly basis after that. That suggests vaccine-derived immunity is very short lived . . . or that they just want to create a very lucrative multi-billion dollar vaccine business for Covid going forward. Take your pick.
(Original post by ER141)
To conclude, vaccines are safe, we need higher levels of vaccination for herd immunity, anybody of any age and health can die of covid, and long covid is real and dangerous. I had more points in my original response to this poster but that was on the app and it didn't post for some reason.
More Project Fear waffle.
The vaccines are proven to be safe in the short term only. Long term testing and impacts HAVE NOT yet been assessed. It is what it is. A risk. A gamble. Herd immunity will be achieved by the combination of BOTH natural and vaccine-derived immunity. You could achieve herd immunity solely through natural immunity but the mortality would be unacceptable and that's why the most vulnerable need to get vaccinated. Anybody can die of Covid yes, and equally anybody can die of a lightning strike or being run over by a bus. Making glib scaremongering statements as you do helps none of us. What matters are the real life statistics relating to Covid mortality in different demographics. The young are extremely unlikely to develop serious Covid illness let alone die from it. That's a fact They have more chance of dying from a car accident than from Covid. By your scaremongering nonsense they should all sell their cars and never drive again !
It is not my intention in this reply to be antagonistic or disparaging but the fact is that 99% of your points are false and completely un-researched and little more than parroting the party line mantras. The facts matter. Without the facts we can not make informed decisions.
You haven't read the vaccine trial data, you haven't read the plethora of studies relating to natural immunity, to vaccine side effects and the like.
Yet here you are trying to sway hearts and minds on a forum without that essential reading and background.
Not good.
Exactly, that poster and others are doing nothing more but spouting what the government tells them rather than doing their own research. The fact is that these vaccines have been emergency approved. If anything were to be wrong with them, the state, and not the companies supplying the vaccines, are liable. I think that alone is reason enough to do your own research rather than relying on what these politicians say. They have already admitted that recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine will need booster shots as it is only 40-50% effective against the new variant identified in South Africa according to a peer reviewed study in the New England Journal of Medicine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214?query=featured_home
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by ER141
Actually it might because there is a lower chance of transmission if you are vaccinated. Yes there is still a risk, I'm not disputing that, but it is safer for everyone if people get the vaccine, there isn't really a reason not to (if you aren't immunocompromised, pregnant, etc)
More false material. You're not doing well ER141 and I strongly suggest you do some research before continuing to post such things.
What you fail to realise and understand is that IT IS THE SAME immune system in your body that mounts a response to either the SARS-COV-2 virus itself or to the materials in the vaccines. The vaccines are not some magic bullet that creates a force field around you. They just force your body to mount an immune response.
You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to suggest that once the body has made that immune response, that there is a lower chance of transmission of the virus from the vaccine route than from the natural immunity route. I'll say it again. It is THE SAME immune system of your own body that is creating and mounting the immune response either way. What matters therefore is how strong that immune response is.
In both cases you could still carry the virus and transmit it to others. Hell you can simply have the virus on your hands from touching an infected surface and thus spread it to other surfaces. Vaccination is NOT some nirvana miracle that makes everything go away. Vaccination is important for the "at risk" vulnerable demographic and is needed to ensure they don't get serious Covid illness and die. Even in this respect they are not bullet-proof. A great many people who get vaccinated won't be well protected, since they are 90% effective at best meaning 1 in 10 people won't have good protection, and besides that everyone's immune response to a vaccine is different. Some people produce a strong immune response, others less so.
There are plenty of reasons not to get vaccinated so again your statement there is totally wrong.
1. If your body has already learned how to recognise and deal with the virus from having had Covid, it does not need to be taught again. That notion is patently ridiculous. So those with natural immunity don't need vaccination imho.
2. If you have a strong body and immune system and are not in the "at risk" demographics then it's entirely valid to choose to take the risk of getting Covid and dealing with it yourself to gain strong lasting natural immunity rather than get vaccinated and then have to get repeated vaccinations the rest of your life.
3. The vaccines are not fully tested. They are safety tested for the short term but not the long term plus the RNA "vaccines" are a new technology that is being used for the first time in earnest. It would be entirely valid to refuse vaccination for those reasons and to sit and wait for 1-2 years to see what happens to people being vaccinated from 2021 onwards.
and there are more valid reasons besides these obvious ones.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Greysync
So can you be specific about which data you are disputing? Could you also educate us on the long term side effects studies of which will be extensive on these ‘vaccines’. Many Thanks. Ps please could you also enlighten us on the efficacy of Ivermectin as a prophylactic and treatment.
don't waste your time. i am immune to the virus ( thanks to the outstanding work of the scientific community ) and also to anti-vaxx propaganda.Original post by pipershannon02
I’m a young adult and at uni and I had the virus with no symptoms so I could have spread it around.
That being the case you obviously now have natural immunity going forward. If the virus comes your way again your body will recognise it and deal with it. I can't fathom therefore why you say that you can't understand why people refuse the vaccines. If you have natural immunity then why on earth would you need/want the vaccines?
Don't you realise that whichever route you take it is your immune system, the same immune system that is mounting the response?
Have you been bamboozled by the media nonsense?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Immunity testing & getting childhood vaccines as an adult
- Covid 19 vaccine
- Do student vets/vet nurses have to have the rabies vaccine?
- AITA? My sister told me it was my fault our dad is dying...
- Birmingham Dentistry offer holders 2023
- Covid 19 seasonal vaccine
- Blood tests for occupational health?
- occupational health live vaccines adult nurse degree
- Pre-Acceptance Medicine Survey Help
- Unable to get MenACWY vaccine before uni
- COVID vaccination for medical application
- Ocr A Gcse Physics Paper 1 j249/03 25 May 2023
- Vaccinations for Thailand
- What if i dont have relative work experience for my personal statement?
- Travel Vaccinations
- Should nurses be paid more?
- MU Sofia 2022
- Anyone still worried about covid?
- (Official) St George's, University of London A100 Offer Holders 2023 Entry
- Birmingham Dentistry 2023 Entry
Latest
Last reply 8 minutes ago
amazon apprenticeship Buying and MerchandisingLast reply 10 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryLast reply 15 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 25 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2926
Last reply 32 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024
