Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 7.27pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
At the end of the day it should be up to someone if they accept or do not accept the risks of getting a vaccine. The information is there now for anyone who was vaccine hesitant or decided to hold off getting it because of lack of info. I like many others made an informed decision about my body that I did not need the vaccine. If anyone made the same informed decision to get the vaccine then no problem. I never told anyone to get or not to get it. Anyways. Back to normal life anyway! I see the amount of people deciding against the booster is high! Also..... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Again, I never said it shouldn’t be… what’s being discussed is generalising and oversimplification of a complex issue, which was the point of my first reply that has been ignored. As for informed it does of course depend on the quality of the sources of information as to how informed someone actually is. Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 7.31pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 7.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
We would agree on viral load, however due to the reality that vaccinated or not you are going to get infected again I have to say I regard it as moot. The difference between anti bodies from previous infections and vaccines....which are only effective for three or four months and require boosters (who most wouldn't have kept up) means that again I regard it as moot. The harsh horrible reality of covid, as with all infections, is that those who were going to die of that initial infection did. We are seeing significant excess death now long after vaccines were introduced and that's also due to weakened systems for whatever reasons. Considering most adults vaccinated the reality is that for the young and healthy this is of very doubtful benefit in terms of covid. We have agree to disagree on the ethics regarding taking injections for a wider social benefit. I have no issues with people doing that if that's what they think they are doing however I do disagree with you on the ethics of this. Vaccines used to be age appropriate, ie the flu vaccine wasn't offered to all ages and obviously the flu is an infectious pathogen. In my view that's going to be the system going forward and we will see if that's what the system is going to revert to.
I don’t see how you can regard the benefits of reducing the potential size of infection as a moot point and therefore irrelevant. It’s also a bit simplistic to say that because antibodies are the same for infection and vaccination then it’s irrelevant… timing matters here - pre-emptive vaccination at a time of peak case load would mean if you did get it you’d have it for less time and with potentially less impact on those around you. No vaccination means you’d be likely to have it for longer and it would be worse. As previous. Everyone isn’t getting infected and vaccinated at the same time. As for ethics - surely that’s only an issue if people are being forced to take vaccines. Otherwise as you (and I have said) it’s up to the individual. It is a fact that protecting a population against pathogens has significant social benefits. If more people took the flu vaccine it would have a big positive impact. I also reckon that a good few people who ‘were going to die of that initial infection’ actually didn’t due to the vaccine. Again, flu. I’d wager many many older or more vulnerable people avoid death because of it every year. Also I’m pretty sure the flu vaccine is offered to all age groups. Kids have it as a nasal rather than a needle. Reason? Because since it came in eons ago research indicates that kids are super spreaders when it comes to pathogens. Therefore this approach reduces the impact on the health system. Ultimately the fact people don’t bother slightly counters the benefits but better to have it than not. So not particularly surprising that the viability for younger age groups is being explored. It’s needed for flu, but it might not be needed for COVID. Research.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 eaglesdare 10 Jan 23 7.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Again, I never said it shouldn’t be… what’s being discussed is generalising and oversimplification of a complex issue, which was the point of my first reply that has been ignored. As for informed it does of course depend on the quality of the sources of information as to how informed someone actually is. Yes a lot of people who took the vaccine were misinformed of the side effects and adverse reactions and as to why they should take it. But now alot of them have done research and are informed and have chosen not to take the booster shot.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 10 Jan 23 8.15pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Yes, research is never a bad thing. [Tweet Link]
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 8.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Yes a lot of people who took the vaccine were misinformed of the side effects and adverse reactions and as to why they should take it. But now alot of them have done research and are informed and have chosen not to take the booster shot. Pretty sure it's only the vulnerable etc. or older age groups (just like flu, again) that have been invited to take the booster. So on that basis deciding against it as a vulnerable person, on balance, would actually be against the science and research and certainly higher risk than not taking it at all. For what it's worth I see no reason for me to pay to get another shot until the science suggests it's actually necessary. I do tend to get the flu jab annually but like most people I often forget or don't bother, but I know the risk vs benefit means I should really get it. Which brings me back to your original post. I’m not sure how I missed this but you can’t write something as reductive (and untrue) as ‘People who are vaccinated still carry and spread covid just as much as someone who is unvaccinated' then sign off with ‘science’ and expect to not get slammed. Based on the available information your point of view is in fact more emotive and ideological than scientific and logical. And to be clear there’s nothing wrong with that, just don't try to claim your viewpoint and statement is in any way scientifically aligned, because it's currently not. If you actually followed the science you'd always go with the least risky option.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 8.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This is not new to me. I bought and read Ben Goldacres book years ago (I think I've recommended this to you before, Bad Pharma). I'm more than aware of how these companies work and the depths they go to. Just look up the Sacklers and Oxycontin if you really want to see how bad it can get. However it would be overly simplistic and not particularly scientific to say Pharma bad therefore all medicine bad. One just has to be rational rather than ideological about these things. Further – this is not new information. Pretty sure I read this early 2021... my point still stands. It's down to timing of infection vs vaccination. Antibodies don't last indefinitely and everyone doesn't get infected and vaccinated at the same time. Actually to add again... this also ignores the fact that the virus evolves. Antibodies for one type might not be as effective against others, although thankfully that's not proven to be too detrimental as yet. If it stayed the same then we probably wouldn't need vaccinations at all. Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 8.29pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 10 Jan 23 8.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This is not new to me. I bought and read Ben Goldacres book years ago (I think I've recommended this to you before, Bad Pharma). I'm more than aware of how these companies work and the depths they go to. Just look up the Sacklers and Oxycontin if you really want to see how bad it can get. However it would be overly simplistic and not particularly scientific to say Pharma bad therefore all medicine bad. One just has to be rational rather than ideological about these things. Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 8.22pm) Well, certainly. I think Russell Brand has done a lot of good work in this area. Anybody sensible knows that medicine is extremely important and very needed....that's part of the problem and why the human need for this most noble of professions is under exploitation by some of the least noble.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 8.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, certainly. I think Russell Brand has done a lot of good work in this area. Anybody sensible knows that medicine is extremely important and very needed....that's part of the problem and why the human need for this most noble of professions is under exploitation by some of the least noble. Agreed. The other issue is that the exploitation goes both ways... Big Pharma on one side and people making money out of misinformation on the other. Both exist because of the other and feed off each other. Not much that can be done about that, ultimately you will only get to the best possible conclusion on things if you (again) take a scientific and objective view rather than ideological or pre-determined one.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 10 Jan 23 8.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Agreed. The other issue is that the exploitation goes both ways... Big Pharma on one side and people making money out of misinformation on the other. Both exist because of the other and feed off each other. Not much that can be done about that, ultimately you will only get to the best possible conclusion on things if you (again) take a scientific and objective view rather than ideological or pre-determined one. On scale that's one hell of a comparison. What was 'misinformation' and what wasn't. Who was being honest and who was being manipulated....we had state sponsored 'nudge units' and projections deliberately designed....not to deliver objective truth, but to control desired behaviour. Adults treated like children. We literally went through the state telling people to 'stay home to save lives'. So please forgive me if I take this 'misinformation' and any easy differentiation on who is making money from what kind of advice with a pinch of salt. Objectivity is by its nature unbiased. As we are all human it's almost impossible but that doesn't mean it shouldn't always be the aim. When you refer to 'science' I'm a little concerned that you perhaps view this as an incorruptible and unquestionable as a source. Any student of history knows that isn't so. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Science is littered with studies and conclusions that were overturned and is by its nature evolving and questioning. Scientists are human and as such subject to all the same problems. I've long since become sceptical over the events of the last two years. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 9.07pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 9.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
On scale that's one hell of a comparison. We literally went through the state telling people to 'stay home to save lives'. So please forgive me if I take this 'misinformation' and any easy differentiation on who is making money from what kind of advice with a pinch of salt. Objectivity by its nature unbiased. As we are all human it's almost impossible but that doesn't mean it shouldn't always be the aim. When you refer to 'science' I'm a little concerned that you perhaps view this as an incorruptible and unquestionable source. Any student of history knows that isn't so. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Science is littered with studies and conclusions that were overturned and is by its nature evolving and questioning. Scientists are human as as such subject to all the same problems. I've long since become sceptical over the events of the last two years. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 8.58pm) It's not an equivalence. But it is a fact that the two exist and feed off each other, and that a lot of people make a lot of money from that on both sides. Just like it takes work to weed out the good from the bad on the scientific/pharma side, the same applies to those questioning it. Can't just latch on to the most popular mouthpiece or the one that you happen to agree with. As should be evident from my previous post re. Ben Goldacre, it's rather obviously not an incorruptible and unquestionable source and that is of course therefore not my viewpoint at all. Also by definition science literally can't be unquestionable otherwise it ceases to become scientific. The nuance here is whether certain lines of questioning hold up to scrutiny or not. Anyone can take a pop but it requires rigour and proof to change consensus, and certainly a lot more than carefully baited and hacked together tiktoks (note, some people do provide some valuable balance and decent content, Brand is a good example as you've shared before but even he can get a bit excited sometimes). To your point, science evolves. Therefore views should evolve with it as things change, and as things change and evolve one should also do the same. That's my viewpoint. To do anything else is unscientific. If in 10 years consensus showed that actually we never needed a vaccine at all and it had no real impact, then I'd have to go with that. Why wouldn't you? The difference here is that I'd wager a lot of people on here would never shift their viewpoint regardless of topic – that's a very odd way to exist in my opinion.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 9.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
On scale that's one hell of a comparison. What was 'misinformation' and what wasn't. Who was being honest and who was being manipulated....we had state sponsored 'nudge units' and projections deliberately designed....not to deliver objective truth, but to control desired behaviour. Adults treated like children. We literally went through the state telling people to 'stay home to save lives'. So please forgive me if I take this 'misinformation' and any easy differentiation on who is making money from what kind of advice with a pinch of salt. Objectivity is by its nature unbiased. As we are all human it's almost impossible but that doesn't mean it shouldn't always be the aim. When you refer to 'science' I'm a little concerned that you perhaps view this as an incorruptible and unquestionable as a source. Any student of history knows that isn't so. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Science is littered with studies and conclusions that were overturned and is by its nature evolving and questioning. Scientists are human and as such subject to all the same problems. I've long since become sceptical over the events of the last two years. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 9.07pm) Surely you have to be sceptical to everything, at all times though? Not just the things you ideologically feel more sceptical about. Recency bias and preconception/assumption isn't particularly useful beyond creating a hypothesis Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 9.30pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 10 Jan 23 9.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Pretty sure it's only the vulnerable etc. or older age groups (just like flu, again) that have been invited to take the booster. So on that basis deciding against it as a vulnerable person, on balance, would actually be against the science and research and certainly higher risk than not taking it at all. For what it's worth I see no reason for me to pay to get another shot until the science suggests it's actually necessary. I do tend to get the flu jab annually but like most people I often forget or don't bother, but I know the risk vs benefit means I should really get it. Which brings me back to your original post. I’m not sure how I missed this but you can’t write something as reductive (and untrue) as ‘People who are vaccinated still carry and spread covid just as much as someone who is unvaccinated' then sign off with ‘science’ and expect to not get slammed. Based on the available information your point of view is in fact more emotive and ideological than scientific and logical. And to be clear there’s nothing wrong with that, just don't try to claim your viewpoint and statement is in any way scientifically aligned, because it's currently not. If you actually followed the science you'd always go with the least risky option. Hahahahahahaha I completely rest my case now!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.