Anti-vax/science/lockdown folks facing consequences in the courts

purplefields

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120070793#Comment_120070793

The problem is with it is that back in the beginning of the pandemic you did have all these people spreading false rumours about the vaccine. Prior to that, there were always anti-vaxxers, ever since vaccines were first used. Unfortunately now, it's pretty much taboo - largely because of these people - to say anything negative about the covid vaccine. It is a really bad situation, because there should always be room for contrary opinions, or even evidence.

When science breaks down like this, you end up in a dangerous place.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074130#Comment_120074130

A basic tenet of science is that something is always open to contrary evidence.

However, pretty much all of the anti-vax "evidence" is not actual evidence., It is one-off examples put forwards as outright fact. It is the anti-vax community that are closed minded when it comes to opposing views.

Just look at this thread. Many people have contributed what they claimed to be details that show that the vaccines are dangerous, etc but when it is looked at, it was all shallow nonsense. They cite various doctors or scientiusts without mentioning how they have been discredited because of their incorrect claims.

Give me one peer-reviewed piece of anti-vax evidence that shows that vaccines are dangerous and then I might not think they are selfish fuc*ers!

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074709#Comment_120074709

"Peer reviewed?! 😂 Theyre all paid off!"

"Fact checkers?! 😂 They're all paid off"!

"Scientists?! 😂 They're all paid off"!

"A bloke i saw on Facebook whos friends nieces boyfriend had a reaction to the vaccine - FACT"

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074130#Comment_120074130

Experts and scientists are constantly debating the vaccines, all the time, their effectiveness, their safety, their efficacy against new variants.

That has nothing to do with the tidal wave of social media woo and anti-vax quackery that is evangelised all over the internet by fanatics.

Even though one tries to disguise itself as the other, there's a very clear difference between the two.

purplefields

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074709#Comment_120074709

I doubt you'll find a such a peer reviewed paper. As I mentioned earlier, it's pretty much taboo now to speak out against vaccines. What scientist is even going to undertake such a study? This taboo unfortunately permeates.

Even for myself, I had convinced myself that my own side effects couldn't have been from the vaccine. It took me weeks to even report the side effects. It certainly colours one's view when side effects happen to you.

In retrospect, I took a booster for a variant which is going extinct, and where the likelihood of someone my age succumbing was quite remote. I don't know how long these side effects will last, and what damage 171/101 blood pressure may be doing to me.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120090627#Comment_120090627

It's not taboo. Again, there is constant scientific debate on vaccines. You are confusing that with something entirely different.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120090627#Comment_120090627

I doubt you'll find a such a peer reviewed paper. As I mentioned earlier, it's pretty much taboo now to speak out against vaccines. What scientist is even going to undertake such a study? This taboo unfortunately permeates.

Vaccines and other medicines are subject to scientific scrutiny and details of the clinical trials are made available. Any scientist is able to reproduce the results and if they find different results is more than welcome to publish the results.

There is nothing taboo about science. There is nothing taboo about vaccines. Whereas anti-vax pseudo-science bullsh1t is taboo. You are more than welcome to provide us with details of a fact based study into vaccines showing that they are somehow bad but, to be blunt, nobody gives a toss about your "I had a side effect so all vaccines are bad" anecodote because it means nothing from an overall scientific or medical perspective.

Even for myself, I had convinced myself that my own side effects couldn't have been from the vaccine. It took me weeks to even report the side effects. It certainly colours one's view when side effects happen to you.

erm, what has this to do with anything? One person's possible side effect does not cloud thousands of succesful results. Vaccines work as intended but, yes, there can be side effects.

You suffered from something a few weeks after a vaccination. Then you convinced yourself (for whatever reason) that it wasn't the vaccine. So are you saying now that it was and what evidence have you to come up with this view?

In retrospect, I took a booster for a variant which is going extinct, and where the likelihood of someone my age succumbing was quite remote. I don't know how long these side effects will last, and what damage 171/101 blood pressure may be doing to me.

Again, you seem to think science is all about your individual experience. Why?

Have you looked at the documentation for your vaccine booster and what did it say? Based on your sentence, you seem aware that there are risks however remote.

purplefields

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091098#Comment_120091098

If you really are interested in biomedical statistics, I suggest 'Design and Analysis of Experiments' by Douglas c. Montgomary. I still have my copy for nearly 30 years. The basic principles still remain. You will see the difficulties involved in analysing data after the event - such as side effect reports. Most statistical experiments are designed, with confounding factors considered.

In my case, I am using primary empirical evidence to draw my own inferences.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093810#Comment_120093810

You just had a reaction to a jab and you've decided that your anecdotal experience means something. There have been 14 billion jabs of these vaccines delivered worldwide. Reactions are relatively common. Serious injury/death does happen but is thankfully very rare.

Dohnjoe

I see that MP continued on down the rabbit hole.

https://news.sky.com/story/mp-andrew-bridgen-has-tory-whip-removed-after-remarks-on-covid-vaccines-and-holocaust-12784275

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097712#Comment_120097712

Bridgen has been involved in a long legal battle against his own family's potato and vegetable business, AB Produce, stating the firm treated him unfairly and forced him out, while the business was suing him over claims he has failed to pay rent on a £1.5 million property owned by the firm. In April 2022 High Court Judge Brian Rawlings ruled against Bridgen, stating that he "lied under oath and behaved in an abusive, arrogant and aggressive manner", was "an unreliable and combative witness who tried to conceal his own misconduct", and "gave evasive and argumentative answers and tangential speeches that avoided answering the questions". After losing the case Bridgen stated that "in actuality I won the case and my brother will be compelled by the Court in due course to repay considerable sums of money back to the businesses", adding "if courts always got everything correct the first time there would be no need for appeal mechanisms".[84] In August 2022 Bridgen was evicted from the property, and ordered to pay £800,000 in legal costs.

He seems well rounded.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097712#Comment_120097712

Good riddance. It's one thing to not want the shot, another to compare it to the Holocaust.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120102740#Comment_120102740

I presume he sees his career as an MP disappearing, so quite possibly he's setting up for a new one on the lucrative anti-vax circuit.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120102760#Comment_120102760

Could well be. The Tories are on course to destroy themselves. Prepping a speaking career in the US isn't a bad idea. Theresa May has made nearly £3 million doing that.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120090627#Comment_120090627

Nah. If there were real side effects, they'd be mass reported.

The trick is to look at who you're trying to convince. A real scientist would be trying to publish their findings and propagate them. Someone spouting this stuff on an internet forum is just propagandising anti-vaxx muck.

silverharp

isnt the data moving in the skeptics favour these days? China proved that the 0 covid fans were wrong. That the vaccine while undoubtedly saved lives in the old and unhealthy, wasnt good enough to decide whether you could eat out, travel or keep your job, and the large amounts of excess deaths now around Europe suggests you shouldnt close societies down for 2 years. Not to mention the knock on effects of all the borrowed money and logistics disruptions largely behind the inflation we are going through now.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103646#Comment_120103646

Why not cite some of this data then as opposed to dumping anti-vaxx talking points?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103646#Comment_120103646

Skeptics of what exactly?

The term and the details of your post are vague.

What data? You seem to be conveniently forgetting why the lockdowns and restrictions and vaccines were put in place.

What would excess deaths have been without them?

No one pretended lockdowns would be consequence free. They were done because the human cost of doing nothing was too high.

And equally you seem to take for granted that if we hadn't had lockdowns, economies etc would have carried on as normal. This is patently false.

The vaccines were good enough to decide that, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do so now. Post the vaccine rollout you were able to go to pub, travel, work except for a short period where there was uncertainty and caution re: Omicron.

There's also a major war going on affecting food and energy prices, so the extent to which covid is responsible for current inflation is debatable.

sammye333

can I ask the question. what is classed as anti vaxx?

is it just someone that never took the shot

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103769#Comment_120103769

At this point it seems anyone that doesn't swear allegiance to them!! I think it also applies to people who opposed vaccine mandates...can't be sure.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103769#Comment_120103769

No it's more than that. Someone who denies the scientific consensus on them and\or thinks they represent a hidden agenda, and promotes that position. Someone who doesn't just disagree with the vaccine mandates we had here but thinks they represent 'tyranny' or some plot.

You can look at the consensus on the data and accept it but also say well I think I'll take my chances. That's not necessarily anti vax.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103646#Comment_120103646

China's policy was unique and widely unpopular, including over there.

Countries weren't closed down for 2 years, there were temporary and partial lockdowns, mainly to keep national health systems from collapsing. One country which tried the opposite approach (Sweden) experienced higher deaths than their direct neighbours in the first year and had a similar economic turn-down.

There are knock-on economic effects from the lockdowns, but the flipside at the time was the potential for a complete collapse of hospitals and lots of people dying as a result. We can borrow money but we can't borrow lives. Which is why countries naturally erred on the side of caution (for obvious reasons)

There's plenty of valid criticism of specific or individual measures and restrictions, however the majority of people in the majority of countries agreed with the principle of them.

sammye333

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103803#Comment_120103803

In hindsight, do you think those mandates were a bit extreme.

I worked in Sweden from the end 2020 until 2022 . They had the same science but nearly everything was open.

zero pressure to get vaccinated. I only wore a mask at work

I'm only asking this , as you gave a balanced answer to my post. thanks

I caught a fair bit of flak for not wanting to get vaccinated.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103792#Comment_120103792

It's people who have an irrational agenda against vaccines. Some are open about it, others try to mask it. For those that mask it, there are the usual red flags.

Same happens in history, there are revisionists who have an agenda (due to prejudice or whatever) and use methods to try and "change" properly researched consensus based history. Some are very clever about it, but usually the red flags (which are similar) build up and are easy to spot.

Silentcorner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103910#Comment_120103910

I'm not sure the vaccine skeptics seem as irrational as the vaccine advocates though, at least, that is not what I'm seeing on here.

It's perfectly rational in my view, to think the vaccines are safe and most likely help reduce severe infection, but be skeptical of giving them to kids, or mandating them...but that is enough to be accused of being anti vax...the Covid vaccine is only one vaccine, it's perfectly rational to different views on different vaccines.

"Others try to mask it"...what a typical view, you don't accept a nuanced view on a new vaccine, that is essentially what you are saying, and that is not a reasonable stance to take, it simply isn't!

Seth Brundle

It's perfectly rational in my view, to think the vaccines are safe and most likely help reduce severe infection, but be skeptical of giving them to kids, or mandating them...but that is enough to be accused of being anti vax...the Covid vaccine is only one vaccine, it's perfectly rational to different views on different vaccines.

The issue is that most people who have formed a different opinion about a vaccine (any vaccine) have usually formed that opinion on a purely non-scientific or rather an emotive basis. There is no evidence to support their belief and as such if someone were to try and tell me that they believe there are unsafe issues in relation to the covid vaccine, the BCG or any other vaccine because of XYZ then I'll happily tell them to fupp right off with their nonsense. There is nothing irrational about it - I'm just not really willing to engage with these people!

As for mandating vaccines - who has suggested this?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103945#Comment_120103945

A lay-person doesn't "know more" than the current consensus of medical professionals, scientists and experts. Unfortunately some think they do, okay, but this has been weaponised by woo on social media.

And yes, anti-vaxxers can be highly deceptive and try to mask it (the whole nature of anti-vax stuff is deception), so they carry off a pretence of "just asking questions" and "just concerned about vaccines" lark.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103696#Comment_120103696

you would have had more excess deaths if there had been lighter restrictions (not necessarily no restrictions) but in some shape or form the actions in 20 and 21 are causing excess deaths now. Germany for instance has similar excess deaths now to their peak in dec 21.

As for the economics, "carried on as normal" is doing some heavy lifting there. Construction for instance could have continued normally and thats time you never get back which fed into housing problems and costs, whereas industries like tourism or the nighttime business would indeed have been more affected.

As for the vaccines they were sold as they would stop the spread which they didnt do, so a healthy 20 something was prevented from socializing and was thus compelled to take a vaccine that had no benefit to them.

On your war point, inflation in Ireland in Dec 21~5.5%, inflation in Nov22 was nearly 9%, so inflation had already kicked off, the Ukraine/energy effect added to the cycle

throw the question into the future, would you think if there is a theoretical "covid-25" for example that the planet has no direct prior immunity and we find out out early that it has a similar profile to who it affects ie it doesnt target the young , ought Europe etc. follow the same playbook as 20/21, or would they go for a more targeted 80/20 approach, try to protect the vulnerable but largely keep most things open like schools? I'd guess it would have to be more tailored and voluntary

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120104107#Comment_120104107

Early trial results showed up to 95% vaccine effectiveness against that variant, ergo there was naturally wide hope the vaccines would dramatically reduce the spread.

Unfortunately this virus had a tendency to mutate and evolve a lot. Fortunately many of the variants haven't been much worse (although several were more infectious)

The rest of the stuff is 20/20 hindsight. At the time the world was making these decisions we didn't have vaccines, the disease was new, etc. In 1918, during that epidemic, affected countries took similar measures.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103908#Comment_120103908

No I think the vaccine mandates we had here, so that high risk non essential venues such as pubs which had been closed during restrictions, reopened to those who were vaccinated was a reasonable and proportionate measure, backup up by the science showing the reduction in risk of severe covid and transmission.

I don't think Sweden's strategy scales to other countries, I think they were lucky to get away with the excess deaths they did. A few isolated Swedens here and there maybe, but Sweden's strategy in London, Paris or continent wide would be a disaster.