Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

josip

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

Pretty callous.

If it is such an insignificant figure surely the manufacturers should pay it?

The point I am making which seems to be going over your head is that there is a small risk in getting vaccinated as well as a risk in not getting vaccinated ( as I have said already)

Just wondering if you are opposed to vaccines in general?

robinph

robinph wrote: »

About the same as the small risk in getting out of bed in the morning.

It’s ironic how the anti-vaxxers love to highlight the (infinitesimal) danger of vaccines yet constantly tell us that the dangers of COVID-19 are exaggerated (“how can it be dangerous if I need a test to tell me I have it?” Etc).

runawaybishop

Raven Victorious Scholar wrote: »

It’s ironic how the anti-vaxxers love to highlight the (infinitesimal) danger of vaccines yet constantly tell us that the dangers of COVID-19 are exaggerated (“how can it be dangerous if I need a test to tell me I have it?” Etc).

Tell me about it. I have a mate who is totally antivax because ' who knows what you are putting into your body, it was rushed' but he has no problem firing product from Columbia into him. I honestly don't understand the divergence in his thinking.

I regurgitate the news

josip wrote: »

Just wondering if you are opposed to vaccines in general?

Not opposed to vaccines in general. If you travel to certain places, you'd want to be vaccinated. I do think the schedule could be looked at for children regarding the development of their immune system.

You can still get sick with measles or mumbs for example even after being vaccinated. It is 80% immunity that the vaccine covers.

I'll let everyone be guinea pigs with this vaccine and see how they are this time next year.

The vax fanatics think all vaccines are the same and can't get it in their heads that as with anything there are risks both ways however small they might be. I've already pointed to the large sums paid by the US government in relation to vaccine damaged people and death as per vaccines.

One thing that is dangerous is the disgust and hate vax fanatics have for anyone that questions anything outside the box of the general consensus.

astrofool

Misrepresenting information isn't a tactic used by those who promote vaccines usually.

Lmkrnr

I take the flu one without any issues so I'll definitely get this. I

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

Misrepresenting information isn't a tactic used by those who promote vaccines usually.

I've backed up what I am saying with government documentation.

Take what you want out of it.

I also do not understand why this vaccine is so rushed. We had less people die in the state in 2020 than we did in 2018 or 2019. You can email the General Registry Office to confirm this gro@welfare.ie

As this is the case, what is the rush. Sorry for asking questions......maybe I should shut up and put RTE back on and plug in to what is really happening

astrofool

The government documentation you present is not saying what you present it as, it's scientific data, there is no anti Covid-19 vaccine angle in it. You are making it all up and trying to present it as fact to hide your real anti-vax agenda.

I'm not pro or anti vaccine, I'm pro science. You are currently anti-science.

Your death counts angle has already been thoroughly debunked, and is another lie you are presenting as fact. The data does not agree with any of what you are saying. Please stop misrepresenting it.

schmoo2k

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

Pretty callous.

If it is such an insignificant figure surely the manufacturers should pay it?

The point I am making which seems to be going over your head is that there is a small risk in getting vaccinated as well as a risk in not getting vaccinated ( as I have said already)

The very same report you linked stated exactly the opposite, that the benefits clearly outweighed the risks - but you failed to highlight that, why?

plodder

Raven Victorious Scholar wrote: »

It’s ironic how the anti-vaxxers love to highlight the (infinitesimal) danger of vaccines yet constantly tell us that the dangers of COVID-19 are exaggerated (“how can it be dangerous if I need a test to tell me I have it?” Etc).

Anti-vax has been mutating into newer, dangerous and harder to detect strains: "I'm not against vaccines in general, but ..." has been around for a while.

The latest mutation we first saw yesterday is: "Vaccine A only causes blindness, whereas B causes death. So, I suppose I'll have to go for A". This is a new tack for the virus which manifests as an appearance of either naivety or irony to those who are exposed to it. Another manifestation of this strain is "I'm directly quoting government data, not some wacky conspiracy site".

So far, it appears an effective test for this strain seems to be to question the context of any data that is cited. But, it remains to be seen how virulent it will become.

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

The government documentation you present is not saying what you present it as, it's scientific data, there is no anti Covid-19 vaccine angle in it. You are making it all up and trying to present it as fact to hide your real anti-vax agenda.

I'm not pro or anti vaccine, I'm pro science. You are currently anti-science.

Your death counts angle has already been thoroughly debunked, and is another lie you are presenting as fact. The data does not agree with any of what you are saying. Please stop misrepresenting it.

The death count was debunked? Did you contact The General Register Office over in Roscommon?

gro@welfare.ie There's the email again......You obviously haven't. Less people died last year than did in 2018 or 2019.....

plodder wrote: »

Anti-vax has been mutating into newer, dangerous and harder to detect strains: "I'm not against vaccines in general, but ..." has been around for a while.

The latest mutation we first saw yesterday is: "Vaccine A only causes blindness, whereas B causes death. So, I suppose I'll have to go for A". This is a new tack for the virus which manifests as an appearance of either naivety or irony to those who are exposed to it. Another manifestation of this strain is "I'm directly quoting government data, not some wacky conspiracy site".

So far, it appears an effective test for this strain seems to be to question the context of any data that is cited. But, it remains to be seen how virulent it will become.

Vax fanatics are almost cult like. I already told you I am not anti vaccine. I have had all the vaccines and my only quarrel is I think the schedule should be spaced out more. Regarding these Covid vaccines, I'm waiting to see how prevalent the side effects are and will probably get it next year.

schmoo2k wrote: »

The very same report you linked stated exactly the opposite, that the benefits clearly outweighed the risks - but you failed to highlight that, why?

The benefits out way the drawbacks to society as a whole. Finally, someone is acknowledging my point that there is a small risk in taking vaccines as well as a risk in not getting vaccinated

astrofool

Year on year, there were more deaths in Q2 2020 than there were in Q2 2019, the difference in death count was 1,063, this was 14.1% higher death count. 1,227 of deaths in Q2 were down to COVID.

Since Q2, lockdowns have reduced the death count overall due to lower interactions between people, and lower cases of accidental deaths. However, in the one comparable quarter, COVID increased deaths by 14%. That number is now likely even higher due to the high number of COVID related deaths at the start of this year outpacing all other causes of deaths, we'll know that true figure sometime in Q2 when data is released.

Again, data, science, not hear'say, stop misrepresenting date, and disappearing into anti-vax conspiracy theories.

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

Year on year, there were more deaths in Q2 2020 than there were in Q2 2019, the difference in death count was 1,063, this was 14.1% higher death count. 1,227 of deaths in Q2 were down to COVID.

Since Q2, lockdowns have reduced the death count overall due to lower interactions between people, and lower cases of accidental deaths.

There were less deaths last year than 2018 or 2019.....The term pandemic was loosely used therefore in respect to 2020.

astrofool wrote: »

Since Q2, lockdowns have reduced the death count overall due to lower interactions between people, and lower cases of accidental deaths.

Can you send me scientific proof confirming this. Like a study or paper written and published?

Would you like me to show you comparisons of US States with had hard and soft lockdowns and a comparison on the death rates per population?

astrofool

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

Since Q2, lockdowns have reduced the death count overall due to lower interactions between people, and lower cases of accidental deaths.

There were less deaths last year than 2018 or 2019.....The term pandemic was loosely used therefore in respect to 2020.



Can you send me scientific proof confirming this. Like a study or paper written and published?

Would you like me to show you comparisons of US States with had hard and soft lockdowns and a comparison on the death rates per population?

In the one comparable quarter, pre and post COVID, death rates increased by 14%, the increase was solely driven by COVID.

Do you deny this?

edit: I would also add that CSO data for Q3-2020 (and therefore Q4-2020) is not available yet, anyone who is claiming figures otherwise is lying and misrepresenting data.

If you want to continue lying dangerously, you can continue to be debunked all day, and everyone can see the facts laid bare for themselves and know that your posts should not be believed.

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

In the one comparable quarter, pre and post COVID, death rates increased by 14%, the increase was solely driven by COVID.

Do you deny this?

I asked you if you want comparable data to show hard lockdowns and soft lockdowns in the US and their effect on death rates.

What are you talking about quarters for? Virus seasons last longer than 3 months.

Last year less people died than 2018 or 2019.....end of story.....Crazy pandemic

If there was an increase in one quarter of 14% it could be down to registering of deaths because the data of 3 months is so small.....in any case......is this really pandemic numbers......14% up in 3 months and down over the whole year?

Will ya cop on

Probes

Surely the effect of lockdowns in Ireland is obvious and doesn’t really need discussing unless you are really far on the COVID denial side of things? It’s clear as day that deaths and hospitalisarions were suppressed until December when we let fly with the result that we had the worst cases/hospitalisations/deaths in Europe. We then locked down and they’ve been suppressed again. There is no discussion here, it’s pretty open and shut.

schmoo2k

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

I asked you if you want comparable data to show hard lockdowns and soft lockdowns in the US and their effect on death rates.

What are you talking about quarters for? Virus seasons last longer than 3 months.

Last year less people died than 2018 or 2019.....end of story.....Crazy pandemic

If there was an increase in one quarter of 14% it could be down to registering of deaths because the data of 3 months is so small.....in any case......is this really pandemic numbers......14% up in 3 months and down over the whole year?

Will ya cop on

Your comparison would only be valid if there was a lockdown in 2018 and 2019 as well. Its why that one quarter is probably the only one that can be compared fairly as the lockdown didn't factor that much.

astrofool

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

I asked you if you want comparable data to show hard lockdowns and soft lockdowns in the US and their effect on death rates.

What are you talking about quarters for? Virus seasons last longer than 3 months.

Last year less people died than 2018 or 2019.....end of story.....Crazy pandemic

If there was an increase in one quarter of 14% it could be down to registering of deaths because the data of 3 months is so small.....in any case......is this really pandemic numbers......14% up in 3 months and down over the whole year?

Will ya cop on

The data for 2020 is incomplete, claiming otherwise is a lie. Using incomplete data is misrepresenting that data.

All the data is on the cso website. Use that data to make your argument.

There is a good summary of it here driven by the data that is available:
https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-factcheck-covid-19-deaths-numbers-5304598-Dec2020/

Again, please stop dangerously lying.

astrofool

Probes wrote: »

Surely the effect of lockdowns in Ireland is obvious and doesn’t really need discussing unless you are really far on the COVID denial side of things? It’s clear as day that deaths and hospitalisarions were suppressed until December when we let fly with the result that we had the worst cases/hospitalisations/deaths in Europe. We then locked down and they’ve been suppressed again. There is no discussion here, it’s pretty open and shut.

We are dealing with a COVID denier hiding behind incomplete data to draw results that they think aligns to their world view.

This person has gone from misrepresenting government data (again no reply on this) to trying to misrepresent mortality rates.

plodder

Probes wrote: »

Surely the effect of lockdowns in Ireland is obvious and doesn’t really need discussing unless you are really far on the COVID denial side of things? It’s clear as day that deaths and hospitalisarions were suppressed until December when we let fly with the result that we had the worst cases/hospitalisations/deaths in Europe. We then locked down and they’ve been suppressed again. There is no discussion here, it’s pretty open and shut.

You'd think. It's understandable when people get frustrated at particular lockdown measures, as I do, but when the same people are also sowing disinformation about the one thing that will get us out of this - vaccines, it's beyond frustrating.

Seweryn

schmoo2k wrote: »

Your comparison would only be valid if there was a lockdown in 2018 and 2019 as well. Its why that one quarter is probably the only one that can be compared fairly as the lockdown didn't factor that much.

Why do you think that lockdown had so much impact on deaths and in what way?
In 2020 we had more road deaths than in 2019, but all road deaths are no more than 0.5 % of all deaths anyway.

And yes, we had slightly less deaths last year than annual average.

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

The data for 2020 is incomplete, claiming otherwise is a lie. Using incomplete data is misrepresenting that data.

All the data is on the cso website. Use that data to make your argument.

There is a good summary of it here driven by the data that is available:
https://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-factcheck-covid-19-deaths-numbers-5304598-Dec2020/

Again, please stop dangerously lying.

If you emailed the General Register you would know you can attain the data for 2020 now on a month by month basis and compare month by month against previous years. This data obviously does not agree with your opinion so I guess you are reluctant to email them.

You can email these gro@welfare.ie and they will reply within a few days. They really are fast.

Instead you point to
"To analyse excess mortality during Covid-19, the CSO used data from the website RIP.ie, which publishes death notices from around the country, to monitor deaths close to the time they occurred."#

The website RIP.ie.....who are they? A private company founded in 2005 in Dundalk.....I'll stick with the government figures from The General Register Office ahead of private companies.

Would you not agree government stats are the ones we should rely on

You didn't think RIP.ie was a government body did you?

Probes wrote: »

Surely the effect of lockdowns in Ireland is obvious and doesn’t really need discussing unless you are really far on the COVID denial side of things? It’s clear as day that deaths and hospitalisarions were suppressed until December when we let fly with the result that we had the worst cases/hospitalisations/deaths in Europe. We then locked down and they’ve been suppressed again. There is no discussion here, it’s pretty open and shut.

Obvious....Can you provide data and/or scientific papers? No? It is open and shut............more scientific terms?


Would you agree that vitamin D has a very important effect on a person's ability to fight illness. Would you agree that locking people indoors reduces their intake of vitamin D....by the way it is spelt hospitalizations not hospitalisarions

plodder wrote: »

You'd think. It's understandable when people get frustrated at particular lockdown measures, as I do, but when the same people are also sowing disinformation about the one thing that will get us out of this - vaccines, it's beyond frustrating.

Misinformation.....I have provided quite a lot of studies and government reports. You have provided nothing to back anything. Fair enough, the experts on RTE said this and that....case closed as.

Early on into the lockdowns in the US, JP Morgan conducted a study showing decreased numbers in infections after lockdowns ended and not the other way around.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

There is little difference between the death numbers for states that went into hard or soft lockdowns. If anything the tough lockdown states such as New York and New Jersey have had the most deaths

Was it case closed when Fauci said not to wear a mask last year?
Was it case closed when Fauci said to wear a mask after that last year?
Is it case closed when Fauci said to wear two masks a few weeks ago?

Will it be case closed if Fauci says to wear three masks?

What was the UK basing its reponse to Covid 19 on.....Professor Neil Ferguson's Imperial College London who used a model to show 500,000 people would die. (They are still listening to this guy)

What is his previous record on predictions?


1. In 2001, the Imperial team did the modelling on foot and mouth disease which led to a cull of six million sheep, pigs and cattle. The cost to the UK was around £10 billion. But the Imperial’s work has been described as `severely flawed’.

2. In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease. He said that could rise to 150,000 if sheep were involved. In the UK the death total was 177.

3. In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird flu. The total number of deaths was 282 worldwide.

4. In 2009, Ferguson and his chums at Imperial advised the Government which, relying on that advice, said that swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK.

Case closed you said?

85,000 were predicted to die in Ireland. Instead we had less people dying last year.

Most of the masks people are using are not fit for purpose
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/most-face-masks-to-protect-against-coronavirus-do-not-meet-standards-1.4395483

6ft social distance is not enough to prevent coronaviruses from spreading. They can travel up to 26 or even 30ft
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/coronavirus-might-spread-much-farther-than-6-feet-in-the-air-cdc-says-wear-a-mask-in-public/ar-BB1297Jm

Lads, you'll have to stop relying on RTE as your only source of information.

There's loads of doctors and scientists such as John Ioannidis from Stanford University in the US and Sucharit Bhakdi from the University of Mainz in Germany. Both highly respected and cited worldwide. They are critical of loads of what is going on.

You won't see them on RTE though. Maybe they are nut jobs though....Maybe all the scientists and researchers that cite their work are nutjob conspiracy people too....actually maybe every single person that does not 100% agree with the response of the government and the experts on TV are all right wing, racists, conspiracy theorists.

astrofool

I think you're better off going to the CT theories forum with a lot of that.

The CSO data is vetted and final and can be viewed by anyone, they will release the Q3 results from last year soon, and it can then be analysed accordingly. This data shows that COVID lead to a 14% higher death rate in Q2 last year. Data from Q3 and Q4 along with the breakdown of causes from death will let us analyse what that data means.

The raw numbers from an email response tell us very little (but feel free to post them if you have them, as they are probably interesting to see nonetheless, if I was betting, I would say that the death count from daily normal life is reduced, but the death count from COVID is high, and will jump even higher due to the ending of lockdown that we had in December, with those numbers affecting Q1 2021, not stopping anti-vax idiots from looking at 2020 data and making stupid statements, but that's just me guessing, I am not going to try and misrepresent this data to suit any agenda).

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

I think you're better off going to the CT theories forum with a lot of that.

More playing the man in stead of the ball stuff from you.

A defeated opponent....You're only resort is slander

Necro

Mod:

Can we get back on topic please - if you want to ramble on about masks there is a thread for that too

schmoo2k

Seweryn wrote: »

Why do you think that lockdown had so much impact on deaths and in what way?
In 2020 we had more road deaths than in 2019, but all road deaths are no more than 0.5 % of all deaths anyway.

And yes, we had slightly less deaths last year than annual average.

A simple comparison with our nearest neighbor, clearly shows how different lockdown timing and measures had different effects on the number of Covid deaths.

Its also worth noting that our worst wave of deaths only started in Jan 2021 and has yet to subside.

astrofool

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

More playing the man in stead of the ball stuff from you.

A defeated opponent....You're only resort is slander

All of what you posted indicates that we should be taking vaccines as soon as possible to allow us to move on from the pandemic.

So, will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Which would eventually allow us to drop masks, social distancing, and reduce our COVID related death count (3,948 and counting, 117,000 and counting in the UK, 3.5 times worse than Ireland per capita, mostly caused by not locking down and enforcing restrictions in time).

I regurgitate the news

astrofool wrote: »

All of what you posted indicates that we should be taking vaccines as soon as possible to allow us to move on from the pandemic.

So, will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

Which would eventually allow us to drop masks, social distancing, and reduce our COVID related death count (3,948 and counting, 117,000 and counting in the UK, 3.5 times worse than Ireland per capita, mostly caused by not locking down and enforcing restrictions in time).

All the stuff I posted from some of the most cited people on the planet or the post from the National Standards Authority of Ireland or was it the data on Neil Ferguson or was it the vaccine damaged payouts from the US government....or was it something else? Or was it the JP Morgan study showing lockdowns have no effect on transmission? Can you be more specific?

Or is it just more playing the man instead of the ball (again) from you. Really says a lot about your argument.

I told you already I am waiting to see how people fair for a year.

astrofool

This thread is about would you take a vaccine, there is other threads for masks and restrictions (and death rates). You can be suitably debunked elsewhere.

Your initial posts were about vaccines causing death and blindness, that was a lie and debunked already, and was at least on topic (even if the content was a lie).

You have given no information about why you would wait a year to take a vaccine, you also haven't indicated if you're OK to be restricted from activities while you hold out against taking a vaccine.

edit:
I would take exception to this as your own posts have been littered with bad grammar, wrong spelling and incorrect contractions, while you highlight someone else's typo:

I regurgitate the news wrote:

by the way it is spelt hospitalizations not hospitalisarions

(and it's actually hospitalisation in UK and Ireland)

robinph

Are you going to take the vaccine?
No.
Why?
It's dangerous, it's not been tested, it's a fake vaccine, it's so Bill Gates can control us.
You do know that is all a load of codswallop?
But look at this link to a page of random quotes from people who are not qualified in any field and this list of random numbers that I don't understand.
You do know that's a load of codswallop as well don't you?
Maybe.
So are you going to take the vaccine?
I'm going to wait a bit until some other criteria which I'm not prepared to tell you about has been met, just like I've been saying all along.
Erm, OK then.

Wait 3 days.

New poster joins the thread.

I'm not going to take the vaccine...
Why?
...And repeat...