Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1367368370372373419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So now the side effects of the vaccines have been reduced to sleeplessness and crying in babies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Mild side effects. The side effects for Covid include death and unpleasant long term effects. Children have been vaccinated for centuries now. Hundreds of millions of people have received these mRNA vaccines, and countless lives have been saved. The tech itself has been around since the 80's and has all sorts of potential for other treatments, including for certain cancers.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Doesn't sound like a side effect to me, sounds like babies being babies and no idea how they could identify any of those "symptoms" as being due to the vaccines rather than a dirty nappy, empty belly or it just being a while since the last time the kid had cried.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And gee, I wonder what a baby with covid might be like...

    Somehow I bet these symptoms suddenly become not a big deal when they're listed as effects of covid.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    where’s the delete? Wrong thread.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭323


    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    The last on here about Africa was made up claims that the poster couldn’t back up, and so ignored questions about it.


    Do you pay a lot of attention to reputable media sources from whatever those countries are to know how their hospitals have been coping? Please post the sources.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But not the fact that the antivaxxers have had to lie and dodge about pretty much every claim they've made on this thread.

    Guess we're just gonna ignore all that...



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    At various points up to 90% of Covid patients in ICU wards during the peaks were unvaccinated. Basically a lot of needless deaths and massive drain on resources.

    Also the 2021 peak had much higher cases than the 2020 peak, but the hospitalisations were relatively much lower. That was due in large part to the impact of the vaccines.

    It shouldn't need to be repeated, but the vaccines reduce deaths and hospitalisations (often significantly depending on variant) which reduced pressure on hospitals and national health systems.

    The only Elephant in the room is that some individuals, at this stage in the pandemic, which most of the world vaccinated, are still preaching fear and hysteria about medical treatment that is saving and has saved countless lives. Vaccines with benefits that greatly outweigh the risks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    I really wonder about these vaccine fanatics who believe it is acceptable to make an infant sick with a novel vaccine just on the off chance that they might become slightly more sick if they catch the virus. The vaccine side effects are death and serious illness as well..no matter how small. The fact that hundreds of million if not billions of people have received a new vaccine in the space of 2 short years is even more concerning because if a medium to long term effect suddenly emerges we have a massive public health issue that will not be containable in any hospital system. And this rubbish about the tech being around since the 80's is true but absolutely disingenious as mRNA has never been used..bar small scale exotic trials..in any vaccine except the mRNA one for Covid.19.

    And I know about the potential for cancer. Cancer kills a multiple of the people that have died from Covid. Where is the mRNA vax for cancer? Where are the safe applications of mRNA in other diseases 2 years from the breakthrough for Covid. There is none

    Pfizer themselves have said

    "The German firm hopes to develop treatments for bowel cancer, melanoma and other cancer types, but substantial hurdles lie ahead. The cancer cells that make up tumours can be studded with a wide variety of different proteins, making it extremely difficult to make a vaccine that targets all of the cancer cells and no healthy tissues."

    Yet they managed to develop a vaccine that could target spike proteins but evade the healthy cells. And as we are now finding out is pretty crap against variants and lets hope the healthy cells are ok long term.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    The vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, we wouldn't be using them otherwise. Your hysteria and panic are not knowledge, it's just a personal irrational fear you have of these particular vaccines. You don't know more than the vaccine regulators and experts in this country, you might think you do, but you don't. You don't know more than vaccine related experts all over the globe (you know the ones with family, kids, relatives, friends, colleagues who will be taking these vaccines)

    You might think you do, but you don't. You might think you have "spotted" something medical science has missed, but you haven't.

    Where do you think all the anti-vaxxers prior to the pandemic who were losing their minds about previous vaccines went? Are all the previous vaccines suddenly not an issue any more? Or is it because it was all a load of BS..

    Think. Or don't, it's up to you.

    Again none of this will convince you, nothing will, you have a cemented belief that no amount of science or fact or reason will shift. None of these replies are for your benefit, only others reading this thread.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Again you're going off about side effects in children and the "potential of death and serious injury".


    And again you keep the claim vague and nonspecific because you aren't willing to support it or defend it.

    If someone asked you to provide any evidence for babies being killed by the vaccine or figures or even a comparison between the tiny chance of death from the vaccine and death from the virus, you'll dodge and back peddle and abandon the claim.


    That's why you've been reduced to claiming that the only danger from vaccine is it makes babies cry and lose some sleep.


    Still no such thing as "vaccine fanatics" or "extreme pro vaxxers"



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Still no such thing as "vaccine fanatics" or "extreme pro vaxxers"

    So you keep telling us, however some experts disagree.

    For instance Martin Kulldorff, former Professor of Medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Harvard Medical School:

    I think that those vaccine fanatics who have been pushing this vaccine have actually damaged vaccine confidence in the country. Not just for the COVID-19 vaccine, but other very important vaccines such as the measles vaccine, polio vaccine, and so on. http://www.hhpronline.org/articles/2022/5/7/rebuilding-trust-after-covid-with-dr-martin-kulldorff

    and

    These vaccine fanatics who insisted that everybody should be vaccinated, including those who already have immunity from having recovered from Covid, I think they have destroyed the confidence in vaccines in general, to an extent that a small group of pre-Covid, so-called anti-vaxxers had never succeeded. https://unherd.com/thepost/martin-kulldorff-lessons/

    Nobody is arguing whether or not there are pro-vaccine advocates, and clearly some of these are more extreme than others, it's pointless to deny this reality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yup. More out of context quotes from yourself while ignoring the false and misleading claims being made by your fellow extreme anti-vaxxer.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Out of context?! Enlighten us then. What is the context that Dr Martin Kulldorff is referencing vaccine fanatics in two separate interviews which in fact means there is no such thing as vaccine fanatics?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    He's controversial, has strong political views and is essentially an anti-masker. He penned the Great Barrington Declaration, which has been widely criticised. He falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid. He supported the Canadian anti-measure convoys.

    There are a million other experts you could be quoting, but there's always a reason why these particular individuals appear in this particular forum.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So his views have been widely criticised, but I am not quoting him out of context. Fair enough.

    His full bio from the Harvard Health Policy Review should anybody be interested:

    Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., who previously was a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Harvard Medical School. Currently, Dr. Kulldorff is the senior scientific director at the Brownstone Institute and a fellow at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom. Dr. Kulldorff received his Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Statistics from Umea University and his Ph.D. in Operations Research from Cornell University. He is a part of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and worked with the CDC to develop statistical methods for their Vaccine Safety Datalink project.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No thanks. No need to badger me on this point. I've made my case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,197 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    It might be noted that the Sputnik V vaccine appears (an Australian-Sinaporean team suggested the data is incredible, that is, not credible) to relied on faked or copied research and itself could well do nothing. This is perhaps lucky, particularly for newly mobilised Russians who only have to fear the cold (no socks, footwraps instead, not much uniform) and Ukrainian bullets and artillery, not possible vaccine side effects.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    In case anybody is interested in Dr Kulldorff's controversial views that have been so widely criticised it is worth quoting the Great Barrington declaration in full:

    The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

    Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

    Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

    Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

    As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

    The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

    Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

    Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

    It is certainly not obvious to me why the above views discredits his opinion that there is such a thing as vaccine fanatics. Essentially the above boils down to the view that the lockdown policies of early 2020 would have "devastating effects on short and long-term public health"

    Current consensus suggests this opinion was correct.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,137 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    What 'consensus'?

    You're jumped from one selectively chosen expert, to the Great Barrington Declaration... to 'consensus'.

    With zero substantiation.

    Have we reached herd immunity? When does the expert think it likely to occur? Could the expert be wrong about a central point of his declaration?

    How has he substantiated his view that his course of action would not lead to devastating effects on short and long term public health?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The general idea is that experts can only be wrong when they support the vaccine. Only these experts are incompetent or have biases or are corrupt.

    Experts who support anti-vaxxer views, or who's quotes can be twisted by anti-vaxxers are incorruptible and above question. (Until that expert then says something that casts doubt on anti-vaxxer claims...)



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions.[11][12] As of October 2020, they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, the WHO said that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the unknown duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] They say that the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the "Great Barrington Declaration is not grounded in science and is dangerous".[9] The Great Barrington Declaration received support from some scientists, the Donald Trump administrationBritish Conservative politicians, and from The Wall Street Journal'editorial board.

    The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial.[14][15][16]





  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You're regurgitating the criticisms of October 2020. How do his claims look with the benefit of hindsight?

    For example:

    Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come

    It seems to be generally agreed that since April we have seen a significant uptick in excess mortality that is not attributed to Covid. What is causing this?



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,596 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Indeed. That is literally the point I was making.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cool. So you accept that these deaths aren't being caused by the vaccine.

    Though I suspect that this will only be until you find it convenient to claim otherwise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    His fringe ideas and anti-mask stuff weren't really implemented, so we don't know how that experiment would have played out on a global scale. Sweden famously did try something akin to his approach, but it didn't go well. They had relatively more deaths in the first year than their Nordic neighbours



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I have always acknowledged that the consequences of lockdown is a plausible explanation as contributory factor to the excess deaths. I believe the vaccines are also a plausible factor.

    I know you don't think the vaccine is a plausible explanation, but do you believe the consequences of lockdown is a plausible explanation?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,137 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    They also had to cancel cancer screenings at times, due to pressure on their hospital services... thereby invalidating this assumption no lockdown means hospital services carry on as pre-covid.

    The Great Barrington Declaration is silent on how hospital services were meant to carry on, while still protecting the vulnerable... it's just hurling from the ditch.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



Advertisement