The fewer people who have it, the fewer people can spread it. Like a cold, or syphilis.Originally Posted by Spikey M
The fewer people who have it, the fewer people can spread it. Like a cold, or syphilis.
This what we were told the whole time.
If there's no outrage, what is there?
Then how was the caseload highest with 80% of people vaccinated?
That quite plainly didn't happen. Again, our highest caseload happened when the majority of the country was vaccinated. However, the case : death ratio was much improved.
Are you going to rock up to the funeral to laugh at the family?Some cunt died at a reasonably local baxxine centre today.
I am fat cunt who got vaccinated and on my worst day of my recent covid bout I still managed to get out of my pit and crack on, compared to people I know who were admantly anti vaccine and spent 5 days in bed with it so score one for the sheeple I guess.
The people I know in real life who are rabidly anti-vax would happily snort a line of mystery white powder if I told them it was good shit.
True, but Pfizer never marketed it that way. So although if it worked out dandy in the end, they still played with the wording when it came to selling it. Even if it was ultimately a massive positive, being a bunch of sneaky twats still isn't excusable, in my eyes anyway.
Fwiw I still think for the 30+ brigade getting vaccinated was the right decision. Even if deaths were already low, it's pretty telling that vaccinated people did not end up like Taz and Magic. Getting it was a minor inconvenience.
The wheels came off when they started trying to pressure kids into getting it.
A quick reminder for the folks at home: Uk vaccine rollout started January 2021. At that time, 55,000 cases a day were being reported.
By May 2021 cases were down to 1,737. By that time, the bulk of the 1st shots had been handed out. The vaccine was preventing spread against the earlier variants. Against Omicron and Delta, it wasn't as effective.
As for the numbers touted at the time, vaccine effectiveness is really hard to gauge because Omicron's spread is so quick, people will have had prior infections and most people are vaccinated. At this point, it really doesn't matter and the vaccines given out today are likely to be targeting Omicron. It's largely given to the elderly who aren't dying as much from this. That could down to the vaccine, prior infections, the fact Omicron isn't as deadly or a combination of all three. Getting hard data to draw hard conclusions out of this is impossible now.
Last edited by Shindig; 13-10-2022 at 07:22 AM.
Still being held up as examples, we're fucking massive MJ.
Just to clarify, are i) the variants now far fluffier and cuter, ii) is the vaccine that you fat dickheads had years ago still providing some sort of protection or iii) are you resigned to getting it badly now that you've all decided to stop taking the glorious juice that protected you so well?
We're just ignoring lockdowns then? Makes sense.
Shite, I forgot how long it dragged on. Didn't remove the social contacts bollocks until September.
Last edited by Shindig; 13-10-2022 at 06:11 PM.
Any other alpha's, such as myself, still not had it?
Apparently I've not, but I've only ever done a few tests (for foreign travel). I can't imagine that to be the case however.
In the absence of Kiko with a link to a 100 page study, it was pretty clear throughout that the only thing that reduced transmission was shutting people indoors.
I lasted until the Jubilee weekend, when a night of debauchery put paid to that. By that stage though I genuinely thought I was one of the few who'd caught the asymptomatic edition.
I'd brace yourself as this hasn't even got going yet. The next stage will be the legal challenges regarding those who died or ended up quadraspazzed from having the vaccine, and in some cases when they didn't even need one.
In many cases, that's complete nonsense.
The risk from the vaccine for children outweighed the benefits of it, which is where the lie about reducing transmission majorly came into play, so you can chuck them all into the many category for a start.
As an aside, do you feel bad about bullying Spikey for not giving it to his kids or is that worthwhile collateral damage in the name of SCIENCE?
Proof?
Appreciate these are not your crimes Kiko, but a quick search shows the sort of shit people who were hesitant to vaccinate their kids were met with. My Sister never did get her kids vaccinated and spent months being labelled as an anti-vaxxer by some of the other parents of kids at her kids' school. Strangely that's all gone quiet now.
I guess "hundreds of years of medical progress" was pwned by Janice from Mumsnet. Not a good look.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...065?via%3Dihub
Published in the Lancet a few months ago.
This rigorous study confirms a link between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and occurrence of MIS-C and myocarditis in children aged 12-17. However, rates of both of these complications are low compared with the rate of MIS-C after natural infection.That study is not ultimate proof, but it's just to show that it is absolutely not established fact that the risks of the Covid vaccine outweigh the benefits for children as you are trying to sneak through.Despite vaccines being associated with rare inflammatory complications, the risk benefit ratio for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination continues to favour vaccination, at least in the 12-17 year old age group included in this study.
I don't have a 100 page study to link to (I think Pepe linked to something earlier in the thread, which is how it's in my mind). Pepe?
There's this from Sweden.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...12-2022-01-27/
Not a smoking gun level proof I know, but why are a medical body are not recommending it while there's still a low risk of serious disease for kids? We know there are (small) risks with vaccines, right? No one's disputing that now are they?"With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them,"
Frankly, you are the one who's been pwned by Janice from Mumsnet. You've taken that point of view as fact just because it was screeched the loudest and fed into your "THE SCIENCE" narrative. I doubt you've ever even tried to look at the evidence for yourself.
I like how you're now using what a medical body has recommended as evidence when in literally your previous post you were denigrating the fact that it is not evidence.
There is absolutely no detail in what you've linked about what they based their decision on. It insinuates it's based on how many kids had "severe disease". As I stated at the time - and as that study I've linked looked at - what we always should have been looking at for kids is post-covid complications like MIS-C/PIMS-TS because that is what makes kids who have had covid sick, not the covid infection itself.
Last edited by randomlegend; 13-10-2022 at 09:39 AM.
How is this comparison factoring in the impact of COVID complications from your child being in a risk group? I've always said that everyone who is in a risk group should have a vaccine and there are a lot of fat kids in the World. If your child is healthy (as my nephew and niece are and I assume Spikey's offspring are), where's the comparison of their risk of having the vaccine vs. not?The rates of MIS-C and myocarditis were calculated as 1.5 and 12.6 per million doses of vaccine respectively. In comparison, the rate of MIS-C after natural infection was 113.3 per million SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Although I do accept that implying the risk reward ratio as fact was poor form.
Not trying to take a side but that clearly states the benefits are outweighing risks in 12-17 year olds. I imagine most of the conflicted parents are thinking more about toddlers.
Which is why I said I wasn't presenting it as proof you should definitely get your kid vaccinated, rather as proof that it is far from established fact at this point that the risk definitely outweighs the benefit.
Last edited by randomlegend; 13-10-2022 at 09:56 AM.
Previously fit and well kids have the same risk of developing the condition as those in at risk categories. Obviously a child with severe comorbidities has a higher risk of needing the highest levels of care just because they have less reserves, but even otherwise well kids can be very fucking sick. The ones we sent to PICU were all slim kids with no previous significant illness, apart from one who was overweight but with no other significant illness.
Interestingly, immunosuppressed kids (like those with cancer having chemo) who would obviously be considered "at risk" are probably at lower risk of PIMS-TS because it's essentially caused by an excessive immune response.
I don't think I have.
I was sick a couple of weeks ago and tested negative. Been sick again this week but I haven't tested. Mum has also been sick and she tested negative.
Symptoms are similar to what I get when I've got the flu though.
Are you still banging on about that cold?
You might be referring to this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4125239
Which does not talk about kids specifically, but about everyone.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).
I have yet to get Covid, that I know of at least. The worst I've felt in the past three years or so was the day after I took my first dose of the vaccine, which gave me a very mild fever that lasted for a few hours. Don't take this as me suggesting that the vaccine does not work or anything.
Those 95% confidence intervals though.
What a nostalgic throwback discussion this is. Anyone have any thoughts on a No Deal Brexit?
Never going to happen.
I see Yevrahs quoted me and I’m not sure there’s a single sentence I said in there that’s incorrect?
Let's go for this one.The reason to get it is because there’s literally absolutely no reason not to. That’s why the only response at this point is ‘Fucking nutters’.
Not sure what your point is. The potential effects of the vaccine, whether positive or negative, seem so fucking small that I think that it is very hard to say at this point that it was a worthwhile investment. I guess you can say that it was worthwhile to promote the technology, which hopefully will be used for more effective vaccines in the future.
Yeah what’s the reason not to.
As far as I've seen it's 1% concern for your health and 99% defiance.
Call it 98% to 2% and we got a deal.
The entire point the paper you posted is trying to make is that the vaccine causes more serious adverse events than it prevents serious covid cases.
Once you look at their 95% confidence intervals (which they conveniently leave out of the body of the paper and are only visible hidden away in a table in an appendix) you realise they have zero credible evidence to make that claim.
Edit: I lied about it not being in the body, I misremembered and the paper wouldn't open to check.
Last edited by randomlegend; 13-10-2022 at 04:17 PM.
It is not in an appendix. It is table 2 in the article (full version here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64410X22010283). I have no interest in defending that or any article that I did not write myself. If you think that their study is shit, then so be it. I just posted it because Yevrah asked. Also, fwiw, the authors of that article seem to only advocate for risk-benefit analysis should be considered when choosing policies. Do you disagree with that?
Rational policy formation should consider potential harms alongside potential benefits. [29] To illustrate this need in the present context, we conducted a simple harm-benefit comparison using the trial data comparing excess risk of serious AESI against reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization. We found excess risk of serious AESIs to exceed the reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible.
If I had my time again I would never have been vaccinated. I'm not sat here worrying about side effects or anything, but just because fuck them.
Same to be honest. I wouldn't bother if offered again.
Why fuck them?
And I would have it again and may have a booster if offered. I had COVID after I'd been vaccinated and it wasn't very pleasant (no breathing problems but felt like shit for two days). I'll never know what it would have been like had I not been vaccinated, but it could have been far worse so I wouldn't take that risk.
Had I not been vaccinated, caught it and been fine, I'd have never bothered getting one. And there's your reason not to have one Phonics.
My smell and taste seems to have dulled quite a bit in the last hour. I guess I've had it since Monday, bit shit that I'm seemingly going to lose smell and taste when it feels like I'm almost over the illness.
Shame you won't lose your weight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
