Whats your opinion on this news article -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12699293/unvaccin…
NEWS HEADLINE READS in todays News -
EXCLUSIVE: Demand for 'unvaxxed' sperm spikes: Women are turning to shady Facebook groups looking for donors who refused to get the Covid shot
Why do you think are they looking for unvaxxed sperm ? ?
Good luck finding it girls, as over 90% of AU population is vaxxed.
There was a conspiracy floating around that the anti-vax campaign was to kill off conservative voters to ensure the democrats got power.
There was also the conspiracy that the vax was meant to GENOCIDE all the sheep who accepted it, so the smart non-sheep can rule the earth… without the obedient sheep the "elites" manipulate to keep society running… hmm…
I kept hearing "you'll see in a few months, all these vaxxed going to drop dead". I'm thinking, my brother in christ, people are already dropping dead and you dgaf.
The problem isn't that. It is the lack of studies on fertility and the vaccine.
If you read about history you will know that there was a mainstream belief that doctors should not clean their hands after operating on one patient because it would give life force to the next patient. This was false, but because no study disproved it, they thought it was true… The same applies here with the vaccines under your logic.
We have only a few or no studies as far as I know involving the affects on fertility of these particular vaccines. In fact the health departments were telling women it was perfectly safe when internal studies showed there was the ability of the vaccine to enter into the bloodstream of the placenta. Not to mention the other issue, which has been proven, which is that the vaccine does not stay in the arm which was misinformation published by many governments at the time…
I mean come on, we already knew that the technology of mRNA was designed to get across the blood-brain barrier, of course we would find the vaccine in other areas of the body… I guess people are misled by the government.
There is also the question about excess deaths which is a statistical issue which cannot be hidden. Those excess deaths cannot be faked. Countries with low vaccination rates have no jump in excess deaths… That is very odd if you ask me.
There have been thousands of studies that have all come to the conclusion that vaccinated and non-vaccinated pregnancy rates are the same. The only studies that go the other way were performed at the school of hard knocks.
The people perpetuating this myth are being intentionally obtuse of are unable to use search engines.
LOL read your own article, they EXCLUDED studies that opposed their hypothesis :/
It's the same problem with every "Systemic Review" and "Meta-Analysis" - clueless people see those terms and assume they are some godly level of research - they are not, they are the most corrupt form …
Go through the references and the studies "excluded" (for any reason the "researchers" choose), there are plenty of Randomised Controlled Studies that were excluded for bogus reasons
But hey, it's a link the ignorant can claim as the all knowing …
Does it count that Pfizer lied about deaths on the data presented for "Emergency Use" status?
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86
But hey, lets assume a multi-billion dollar company that has everything to gain from doing their own research is 100% legit !
@7ekn00: Another person being deliberately obtuse, the reasoning on what is selected is in the paper.
All studies which investigated the impact that COVID-19 vaccines might have on fertility, both in male and in female subjects, were considered pertinent.
Only studies reporting primary data were included in the systematic review.
Case reports, case-series (reporting data for fewer than ten patients), reviews (narrative or systematic), communications, perspectives were excluded.
Articles related to pregnancy outcomes instead of fertility were excluded. Data regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 virus on fertility were also excluded. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion among the study team members.
Have you had a look at the writers of the article you linked or actually read the link? You only linked the abstract. And even if everything written by habitual vaccine deniers was true, 0.17% of deaths is far less than our excess mortality of 1.4% in 2021 or 10.9% in 2022.
@ginormousgiraffe: How are you mindless enough to be arguing over the efficacy or safety of a product that multiple of it's own company CEO's have gone on the record and publicly stated that it didn't work, was never tested to see if it worked as advertised, the side-effects were intentionally hidden from regulators & the only reason they ever put it to market in the first place was "because it would be financially irresponsible to shareholders if we didn't at least attempt to put something out there in the marketplace" ???
Literally every last supporting "study" into the efficacy of the drugs, or presenting it as being safe in any capacity has literally been debunked by the manufacturers of the drugs themselves.
@infinite: You'll be down voted to oblivion because the cookers have selective memory, they won't even remember that corporate and political "apologies" were given.
Antivaxxers hold this incorrect belief they can just opt out of having Covid mRNA in their body altogether.
But they end up with more than any of us. From the virus.
Hypothetically if it did cause infertility then vaccination is protective. Even if it contributes to the problem, it lowers your lifetime titre from viral exposure.
Wasn't unvaxxed sperm supposed to be a cryptocurrency or something, I remember a website in 2020. Wonder how that's going…
whoa! The anger here because some women want unvaxxed sperm is shocking.
Is it a preferable flavour?
No idea, you can ask on the facebook group if you're eager.
Salty, apparently.
Maybe the preferred color, smoothness, viscosity, texture,
It's ozbargain, did you expect something different?
No lol, but it's still funny how angry they are about it because of some women on a facebook group.
The term in this case is "slapper.
Actually what is shocking is people that ignorant are breeding. Idiocracy is looking more like a documentary as we go along.
97% of cookers in Australia fell for the lies and got double jabbed.
Feels good to be in the 3%.
Overall, including under 16, I think the double-jabbed around 84%, it's not as high as they try to make it out to be.
Where? All I can see is jokes…?
I would have thought that all the unvaxxed would have died off by now! :-)
Zombies don't die like that
Dont thin to hard and long about the unvaxed dying off
Have you thought about the 450 to 500 excess deaths we are having weekly in AU since vax started
These deaths are mostly the vaccinated,
The government refuses to lunch a inquiry as to WHY we having around 25,000 excess deaths yearly
Australia has not seen that many excess deaths ever, only in WWI & WW2 wars.
what is ALBO hiding under his skirt ? ?
There is an inquiry literally underway https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/evidence-trail-inqui…
Even multiple doses of the vaccine don’t provide complete protection, and people continue to die from COVID. If you are old or have risk factors, being vaccinated lowers your chance of death substantially.
To many lost infertile brains here
I said the government is
"refuses to lunch a inquiry as to WHY we having around 25,000 excess deaths yearly"
You state the following, in your above link heading
" What’s the evidence? Inquiry to probe rationale for COVID lockdowns"
Is it similar a related inquiry NO does it mention the hidden excess deaths NO NO
Do you know the difference between a what male and female has downstairs. I think no
SO WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT FAILING TO LAUNCH A INQUIRY FOR 25K EXCESS DEATHS,
When the government is REPEATEDLY & PROMPTED TO DO SO.
During covid lockdowns they were on TV every morning, with updates on the deaths, which Were mostly the elderly 70 to 90 year olds already on death bed waiting for the ride to heaven, and there were usually between 4 to 10 deaths a day in NSW
HOWEVER = when we have 25000 excess deaths yearly, it falls on death ears WHY ?
@surg3on: google it excess deaths, stop walkinr around with your eyes half closed, wake up
not saying covid caused all of them, it contribute to them
@surg3on: The excess death figure is/was true, it represents the additional deaths in 2022 primarily from COVID (following the below trend 2020].
This year started higher than usual too, but is drifting back to average.
There is no evidence of any deaths related to COVID vaccines except for the handful or so covered extensively in the newspapers.
The excess deaths are not unexplained deaths, they include the deaths from COVID itself and likely some additional mortality that might have been impacted by lockdowns etc. stuff like a cancer detected later than usual because a screening was missed, plus a bit of other variation like a slightly higher road toll. This is sad, but worth remembering countries like the USA and UK got much higher COVID deaths, and also the ones resulting from delayed medical care.
Excess death figures in the mortality stats here. Previous quarters give good commentary too:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provis…
@mskeggs: WHY why WHY is it -
tht every country worldwide that took up the vaccine in higher percentages
had substantial excess deaths clearly showing on government statistics
That cannot be denied, this been accurate and true. proof is they are buried.
but the previous years its was normal deaths, then deaths ONLY spike after vaxx rollouts
Countries that did not take up the vax in high percentages, do NOT have excess deaths.
in AUSTRALIA we are seeing around average 450 excess deaths weekly, about 25k yearly.
@mickrb30: I've already shared a link showing excess death rates declining, and that they were largely made up of COVID deaths.
You don't need to be a scientist or a statistician here. In countries similar to Australia, like the UK, USA, Italy, France they all had high death rates before a vaccine was developed. Those death rates declined as their populations got vaccinated.
In all those countries this COVID virus was widespread, even in lockdowns etc.
In Australia we had the opposite - a lower death rate than usual and almost no COVID at all as the people were isolated from the sick by border closures and lockdowns. This death rate remained the same after substantial numbers in the community were vaccinated, only rising after isolation measures were removed and COVID became widespread.
You can see this clear as day in the figures that show deaths in all these countries, it isn't a mystery or conspiracy.
@mskeggs: If you are accepting and not disputing that countries with a low vaccine update are not showing excess deaths, then it indicates your logic is flawed.
In Australia we had the opposite - a lower death rate than usual and almost no COVID at all as the people were isolated from the sick by border closures and lockdowns.
Your link does not include a graph nor any data for the year 2020. Not including the data for 2020 is disingenuous.
This death rate remained the same after substantial numbers in the community were vaccinated, only rising after isolation measures were removed and COVID became widespread.
The ABS data is not only inconsistent, its blatantly misleading. Including year 2021 into the baseline to show the excess covid deaths is akin to circular reasoning. This is literally insane.
@bigticket: Who would say other countries have not had excess deaths?!? Every country has, there has been a global pandemic.
ABS stats have been available every quarter, they are not hidden. They showed a slight reduction in usual mortality in AU in 2020 when we had no COVID in the community, and they show increases in 2021/22 of around 500 excess deaths a month, which coincides with when COVID became widespread in AU (allowing for a month or so lag for people to catch it and die).
Thee most recent figures show the excess deaths over long term averages still there, at 200-300 a month, but less than the 21/22 peak.
Again, most of these additional deaths are attributed to COVID deaths, with a smattering of other causes, a slightly higher road toll, some extra cancer deaths that might have been avoided or delayed with more timely diagnosis impacted by lockdowns and medical resource limits.
There is no indication at all of deaths related to vaccinations. All of the handful or so of people who died were heavily reported in the media, and sad as their deaths are, they don’t move the needle on excess deaths.
@mskeggs: Responding and not addressing any of the points raised by my comments regarding your linked ABS data indicates to me you agree with these statements?
ABS stats have been available every quarter, they are not hidden.
I did not say or imply the data is hidden. However, as noted the stats are misrepresented and misleading.
Who would say other countries have not had excess deaths?!? Every country has…
Generally that is correct. The issue is attributing the cause(s) of this increase.
For the most part your comments are correct, except your own ABS link shows all cause mortality is averaging ~350 to 400 per week NOT per month.
Looking at this from a epidemiological standpoint, a virus that is purported to be highly transmissible and infectious, had spread all over the planet in a very short time, but seems to stop spreading at boarders. In Europe for example, some neighbouring countries had markedly different all cause mortality outcomes and also within countries themselves, different governed boroughs, regions, states etc show the same disparity.
Fundamentally, it does not make sense. Does a virus have the emotional intelligence to respect boarders? What can be said, is that where there were extended lock downs based on reaching a nominal and constantly changing vaccination rate, deaths were high. Its up the individual to rationally and objectivity look at all data and not blindly follow the narrative.
If you are old or have risk factors, being vaccinated lowers your chance of death substantially.
Some vaxx's can offer a reduced chance of that (like with the Flu vaxx's), for some elderly people in some scenarios. The Covid Vax is not one of those though. As per the manufacturers themselves, there is no data or testing that proves the Covid jab or any of it's boosters offer any capacity to stop infection, the spread of infection, or protect against Covid for any period of time at all. As such, it has no capacity to lower the chance of death for anyone, no matter their age or state of health.
That's as per their own FDA submission updated at the start of this month: https://www.fda.gov/media/167212/download
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
"The duration or protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown."WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
Multiple pages-long list of health conditions, severe reactions, life-impairing disabilities and different ways it could end your life……
Covid jab/booster manufacturers now are only allowed to state that their drugs "may offer protection", as that is the allowable marketing terminology.
@infinite: And the vaccination rate was unrelated to the death tolls in countries where many people died before the vaccine was available?
Was Australia much better at washing our hands or something to cause the lower death rates to comparable countries like the USA or UK?
Or maybe preventing COVID spread until 90%+ of the population was vaccinated had something to do with it?
@mskeggs: Shhh, they don’t like facts. They will put it down to some other factor. Maybe we get immunity from our Koalas.
Or maybe preventing COVID spread until 90%+ of the population was vaccinated had something to do with it?
There were counterpoints around the world that show this isn't a reasonable inference.
Some countries saw death rates increase greatly on "vaccine" rollout while still locked down.
Some countries saw delayed rollout.
Many people have criticized the integrity of the data itself, reporting methods, and the biases of the people collecting it. There are lots of guesses why the data comparing countries doesn't really make sense.
It's hugely unscientific to ignore bias and make inferences that support a narrative that just so happens to be in the interest of the incumbent powers.
I'm so sick of all these cookers living in a fantasy land where it so happens that despite 2 years of media and "scientific" (corporate) reporting conflicted data, with wildly varying and irreconcilable conclusions, you defend the narrative that supports all the political overreach and profiteering we've seen given whatever current explanation is, and justifies the early extrapolations that were wrong, and the early vax data that was wrong.
@ssfps: A lot of words with little to back them up. Dial back the emotive language and show us the independent studies. The vast majority accept the science and have moved on. If you have an argument then make it rationally.
@try2bhelpful: How are you in here posting links to studies inferring that men can get pregnant, while also asserting you have accepted the science………..
Do you even understand what science is ?
@infinite: Well, that's an interesting piece of dishonesty- editing before posting to back your point.
With copy and paste, that it 100% deliberate.
@infinite: It isn’t inferring that at all. You might want to look into the concept of identifying as male but still having a uterus. You may not like it but it is,certainly, a possibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/20/the-dad-who-…
@infinite: This looks like something straight off Facebook University. The FDA document you link, which you seem to think justifies your conclusions, was not written to justify the efficacy of the vaccine.
By the way, you copied the wording incorrectly. Hilariously I can't work out if it was on purpose, and you're being disingenuous, or because of your preconceived bias, you probably read it to match your own opinion
"The duration or protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown."
What it actually says:
"The duration OF protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown.
I also find it interesting, you also specifically didn't copy across the more important bit before it:
"FDA has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to provide protection against COVID-19."
You know, the bit that says an agency full of medical professionals that didn't get their degree from Facebook have reviewed the data and determined that the vaccine should be used at a population level due to the protection it provides. Funny that you didn't discuss that at all?
So, even though this document isn't a document used to justify the efficacy of the vaccine, it absolutely DOES NOT say what you think it says.
There are numerous controlled, double blind, and population studies that demonstrably show that the covid vaccine, particularly in the originally strains, was able to reduce hospitalisation and death rates compared to unvaccinated persons. This is an absolute fact, and to deny that means you lose all credibility. In addition, you spout the same nonsense 'not tested to stop the spread'. When the covid vaccine for the original strain was trialed, it absolutely did reduce the rate of infection (fact), given that there was no infection, that is the critical aspect to measure. No infection, no spread. Now of course, this had a limited time effect, like the flu vaccine (circa 6 months), and 10 strains later, the vaccine is really unable to stop infection, but denying it ever stopped infection, again, absolute fake news.
There are ABSOLUTELY nuanced arguments about the vaccine, how it was rolled out etc.etc., but trying to argue via an FDA 'fact sheet' that they were not efficacious, particularly originally, with respect to hospitalisation and death is absurd. That is just science denial.
Also, in terms of the duration comment:
Obviously like the flu vaccine, the duration of protection is not known for sure, as it can change by person, and by strain. This is why at risk persons need to get boosters for the flu vaccine within one flu season, because the efficacy over a specific period of time cannot be known.
You know, the bit that says an agency full of medical professionals that didn't get their degree from Facebook have reviewed the data and determined that the vaccine should be used at a population level due to the protection it provides. Funny that you didn't discuss that at all?
Your point is undercut by the fact the FDA has a history of approving medications despite discovering scientific fraud by the manufacturers. Regardless of what that linked document says (I haven't looked at it), the FDA is not a trustworthy regulator.
science denial
Your professed trust in such a heavily biased and corrupted regulatory body suggests it is you who are the science denialist, preferring instead to trust guidance from biased political and corporate institutions.
@ssfps: Don't infer that I think FDA is the perfect, be all, end all approver. Nor did I purport this. It's just that the OP used the FDA as some level of authority to prove their point. I.e. they thought the FDA stated the protection is unknown, and given FDA is an authority, it must be important (nevermind the fact that they misread the document..)
I think the fact that almost every country's health authority largely
independently approved it in the same way is probably more telling.
Edited because I didn't see your last point.
I regularly reviewed other data/papers on coronavirus downunder, at the time, and there has been almost no evidence to refute the original studies findings. again, there's something to be said about waning efficacy, changing strains and the degradation of performance, but that doesn't discount original performance.
Being a contrarian and suspicious of 'corrupt' organisation doesn't make your automatically right, especially when you provide zero evidence to refute.
I think the fact that almost every country's health authority largely
independently approved it in the same way is probably more telling.
IMO it's telling that our regulators follow the US regulators' lead with minimal effort behind rubber stamping it. It's not like the TGA performed independent testing to back up the claims the FDA rubber-stamped. Do they ever do that?
dailymail = cancer
At least it won't cause young or healthy people to suddenly die of a heart attack !
Covid did.
Mass murder maybe
Did they publish the manifesto today from the Tranny mass-murderer who targeted white kids and old religious people in what is the worst hate crime in the US this decade ?
@try2bhelpful: It's been publicly published for over 48 hours now. Just google it if you wish to inform yourself of it's contents.
Fair warning though, it's very disturbing. The Tranny mass-murderer has an unbelievable amount for hatred for blonde people, white people, straight women, Christians and a weird fixation on children in general.
@infinite: I did Google on “trans mass murderer” and came up with nothing apart from a shooting that killed 6 people earlier in the year. Provide your link to a reputable source please.
The worst mass murders seem to be done by rightwingers. The massacre in Christchurch and the shooting in Vegas.
I think you'll find this thread to have equally carcinogenic posts from a number of anti-vax/cooker Ozb members - thus DailyMail links would be on course with some of the discussions in here.
Google "died suddenly" and you'll soon realise why people want #pureblood / #organic spoof!
The 💉💉💉 were never 'safe' nor 'effective' people have had adverse reactions to it, as well as died in some cases, the percentages are abhorrent…….and if y'all had the 💉, you still caught it.
Happy to make some $$$ and save the human race 😁😂🤣
if y'all had the 💉, you still caught it.
You still don't get how vaccines work?
LOL, please explain how "vaccines" work?
As prior to 2020 "vaccination" was defined as preventing a disease ;)
Polo, Chicken Pox, HPV, Lyssavirus, Measles, Mumps ALL PREVENT THE DISEASE !
So please, please explain how "vaccinations" work - be sure to include those prior to 2020 and those since 2020 and explain why the different definitions now …
"Science" now has a different opinion, ok?
Don't argue.
Science knows better :-|
I was vaccinated against whooping cough and still caught it. It lessened the severity of the disease and in my opinion that’s a good thing because I didn’t die from it.
@ssfps: Actually I do have evidence of this, I caught whooping cough from someone who was unvaccinated at school, she couldn't be vaccinated for medical reasons. She was sick for about a month and excluded from school for almost 2. She ended up in hospital for around 1-2 weeks.
I was sick for maybe two weeks the worst of my symptoms occurring over a 7-10 day period. I was back at school in a little under a month. I also didn't infect anyone else in my household. My mum took me to the GP clinic at the local hospital where I was tested and it came back positive for whooping cough. Other than that, I didn't end up in hospital. My symptoms although horrible, were manageable at home.
Actually I do have evidence of this, I caught whooping cough from someone who was unvaccinated at school, she couldn't be vaccinated for medical reasons. She was sick for about a month and excluded from school for almost 2. She ended up in hospital for around 1-2 weeks.
How do you know you caught it from her?
How do you know you and her would have been sick for the same amount of time?
protip: you don't, you're guessing you were based on the prior belief that the vaccine has done that.
@ssfps: I'm not going to outlay my entire life from over 20 years ago for you to dissect to try and find a way to disprove my experience for it to fit with your theory.
I know what I experienced as someone who was vaccinated vs someone who was unvaccinated, but by all means keep grasping at straws. I'm just not going to be a part of it.
@sheebies: I don't need to dissect your life, you just illustrated a confirmation bias, which is why we need science - so "evidence" like yours isn't assumed to be correct.
You seem to be entrenched in your viewpoint, so there is no room for rational argument, you have an emotional attachment to the idea that a specific person transmitted an invisible disease to you, and without a pharmaceutical injection you would have had the exact same severity and duration as another infected person (highly unlikely for most infectious disease).
but by all means keep grasping at straws
This is a meaningless assertion - you haven't shown why your experience isn't a confirmation bias of your existing belief. In fact, you can't. If you could, medical research would be a lot easier and cheaper. You probably understand that when applied in different situations, but can't accept that it applies to you here, too.
i'm not going to be a part of it.
This is a psychological defense mechanism - denial.
It lessened the severity of the disease and in my opinion that’s a good thing
The whooping cough vaccine is a traditional vaccine, in that it can prevent you from catching a specific bacterial infection. As such, it has no capacity to reduce the severity or effects of whooping cough, if you do develop it from the bacteria (bordetella pertussis).
See: https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccine-…
"No statistically significant difference in severity of illness was found between unvaccinated and vaccinated"
The vaccine either works and you don't develop whooping cough, or it doesn't work and then you may develop it. If you do develop whooping cough, having received the immunization does not reduce the severity of whooping cough at all.
As prior to 2020 "vaccination" was defined as preventing a disease ;)
Indeed, no one ever caught the flu the same winter as taking the flu vaccine
@Randolph Duke: Traditional vaccines prior to 2020 didn't guarantee they'll stop you from catching something, however their efficacy at doing so was extremely high.
Unfortunately after the vaccine definition was changed in 2020, vaccines can now offer no capacity to stop from catching something, however they maybe possible could under certain circumstances have a suggestion of reducing severity or the term of having caught something, using specific marketing phrases to advertise that - despite the manufacturer of those substances publicly stating there is no scientific evidence of them even working as stated - like with the Covid jab and boosters for example.
As a result, we have drugs listed for use as vaccines now that have all the potency and efficacy of vitamin C tablets imported from a third world country that had a bonus religious blessing bestowed upon them.
The way a vaccine works is to prime the immune response of the antibodies to enable it to respond to the infections quickly. Things like Covid and the flu vaccines mutate a lot more quickly than things like the other diseases you mentioned. How well the vaccines for things like Covid work is dependent on how far the virus has mutated from when the vaccine was developed and how well the immune systems are primed. As the statistics show people generally have a less severe dose of the disease if the immune system is primed prior to getting infected. Flu vaccines have, generally, had a lower effectiveness rate than those for the other diseases you’ve mentioned even prior to 2020. How effective the flu vaccine has been is dependent on what mutations are in the community when the vaccination occurs. Similar for Covid. However, in both cases the vaccine may not prevent the disease but the primed immune system responds more quickly.
However, even in the cases of the diseases you’ve mentioned the vaccination can wear off after a while. My man got Whooping cough in his 50s because his immune response was no longer well enough primed to fight getting the disease.
Maybe you need to understand what vaccinations are designed to achieve and how mutations can affect the effectiveness.
@try2bhelpful: People understand how vaccines work, they also understand the difference between vaccines in general and the Covid shot, which it's own manufacturers have gone on the record and repeatedly stated for almost three years now that it doesn't work as advertised by state health authorities, or offer any long term protection against Covid in any of it's forms or mutations at all.
@infinite: The issue comes down to mutations in the virus which can vary the effectiveness of the vaccine. How it worked initially has varied from how it works now because increased infection in the community has lead to greater mutations. However, the death toll compared to infection rate has dropped dramatically. People’s immune systems are primed to minimise the seriousness of infections. I would like to see your scientific basis for indicating the vaccines offer no long term protection for Covid, because I have not seen any reputable documentation out there that says that.
Natural herd immunity over time is always an option. Some people, eventually, became naturally immune to the Plague but it took hundreds of years and the death of 1/4 of the population in Europe to do it. I, suspect, if they’d had a vaccine for it most of the populace would’ve been grateful. Of course there would’ve been objectors who would’ve said it was God’s punishment for our sins.
Will we need to continue to get vaccinations long term? Right now I really don’t know it depends on how the mutations take shape. It could turn into yet another disease that mostly picks off the elderly or it could mutate into something worse. However, given what we saw before the vaccine was available the vaccine was the best choice to make. It was the quickest way back to the level of normality we have now.
I would like to see your scientific basis for indicating the vaccines offer no long term protection for Covid, because I have not seen any reputable documentation out there that says that.
That's a fact as per every jab & booster manufacturer's own current FDA submissions, at of the start of this month. Example: https://www.fda.gov/media/167212/download
"The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown."
Anyone stating otherwise is contradicting the vaccine's own creators, their data and the actual science on it.
You have to be willing to take those drugs at your own risk, acknowledging that their own manufacturer specifically states to the regulators globally, that the product does not have any evidence at all that it protects against Covid for any period of time.
@infinite: Huh? All that is saying is the duration for protection is unknown, not that it doesn’t protect people over the period between recommended doses. It depends on your definition of long term and the concept of booster shots. You are misinterpreting what is written in that document. If you read the rest of it, it talks about the effectiveness of the vaccine.
@try2bhelpful: You should go and actually read the document.
It's only 8 pages long and 6 of the 8 pages are warning people about taking it or the side-effects or life altering/ending effects you risk if you do take it. of it. The other pages detail why it's not effective.
There is 1 page in the entire document that has a section listing the drug's benefits against covid for a consumer and the one and only response is literally "The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown."
Natural herd immunity over time is always an option. Some people, eventually, became naturally immune to the Plague but it took hundreds of years and the death of 1/4 of the population in Europe to do it. I, suspect, if they’d had a vaccine for it most of the populace would’ve been grateful.
Did you even stop and apply that big fat scientific brain of yours to the question of why the plague would break out only in certain areas of the world at certain times? For example, why much of Moorish Spain didn't have a big problem with it?
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the prevalence of measles was in sharp decline decades before the measles vaccine was invented?
Vaxi-maxies ascribing nearly all advancement in infectious disease prevention to vaccines is an infectious brain-rot head-canon.
@ssfps: My suggestion is you have a look at the maps on how the plague spread coming in via ports and across the countries. You might also want to understand the transmission paths via trade routes. There wasn’t the mass transit we have nowadays where someone in one country can be across the world in 24 hours. Look at the quarantine services that were setup to protect certain areas and how they tried to isolate people with plague.
Your comments aren’t making a lot of sense. My scientific brain is still using logic.
Your comments aren’t making a lot of sense
No one is debating your inability to understand the science or facts.
@infinite: Hmm. I think there would be people on here who would disagree with that. I also think the majority of the people around the world would come down on my side as well. Yet another insult rather than addressing the issue.
@try2bhelpful: The vast majority of the world has never had the jab or any boosters, so how are they "coming down on your side" ???
I also think the majority of the people around the world would come down on my side as well.
Your logical scientific brain concludes that consensus equates to scientific truth? This is not a childish game of I have more people on my side, therefore I win. Science does not work that way. It would be embarrassing posting rubbish like that on a public forum. Since you love google, try searching the scientific method.
@bigticket: It used to be consensus that the world was flat, women shouldn't be allowed to vote & citizens shouldn't have the right to own property.
Sure is weird the things try2bhelpful wants to be on the side of !
It used to be consensus that the world was flat,
When was this? It was only amongst certain minority noisy groups. Unless you're going back to caveman ages, then yes i agree.
Midwit comment, your smugness isn't warranted.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-02-05/covid-19-vacci…
University of Oxford researchers this week published results of a study that found the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which most Australians are expected to get, "may have a substantial impact on transmission" of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).
It's important to note that the paper has not yet run the usual scientific peer-review gauntlet. It's also not yet clear whether the other COVID-19 vaccines stop people passing on the virus.
In clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 95 per cent effective at reducing disease. But whether it stopped people from getting infected in the first place isn't yet known — because it wasn't measured.
hmmm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-01/covid-vaccines-effect…
We know that in countries with high vaccination rates, both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs have stopped enormous numbers of people getting infected.
When the vaccines were first approved, trials showed the AstraZeneca vaccine stopped about 70 per cent of infections, and Pfizer 90 per cent.
whoops
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-09-24/covid-vaccines…
"This is currently an epidemic of the unvaccinated," Professor Collignon said.
"They're the main people getting infected, and spreading it. That's why vaccination is so important."
whoops
I've had many discussions about vaccines over the past few years with people who are pro-vaccine, anti-vax and somewhere inbetween.
Statements like the one I replied to show that yhe user went through COVID and didn't bother doing even basic research. The method by which vaccines work is taught in highschool, IIRC.
As to whether the COVID vaccines had issues, that's another discussion which I haven't commented on.
I'm not really sure what the point of your comment is. I think it also shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
You still don't get how vaccines work?
Google "died suddenly" and you'll soon realise why people want #pureblood / #organic spoof!
correct me if i'm wrong, but it was common for people to die suddenly even before covid was an issue
Not 16 year Olds on the footy field with heart attacks or 13yo girls having hysterectomies…… These "adverse effects" are well known, but if you want Chairman Dan to lock you down again and line up for 💉 #7 then go for it! 😂🤣😂🤦
Heart attack or cardiac arrest? They are two different things. Also Yes, young people die from both, albeit rarely and did so prior to the Covid-19 pandemic due to any number of factors, usually congenital.
I went into cardiac arrest 3 times as a child, a time traveler must have given me a Covid Vaccine without me knowing!!!!
@OhmyRyzen: Very scary. Did they identify any sort of genetic issue? I apologise if that is too personal.
@try2bhelpful: No genetic issue, not that they would have been able to determine that at the time. In the simplest of terms it was due to cardio-vascular issues that have since been resolved.
@OhmyRyzen: Glad to hear they could treat it. It would be very concerning until they had it sorted.
Unfortunately every year there are people who have underlying issues that aren’t identified until they go into cardiac arrest. I’ve heard of a few cases where this happens to even very fit athletes. As you say this was happening well before Covid. Best of luck with your health.
@try2bhelpful: Cheers, as far as I am aware they do oxygen saturation screening on newborns to detect Critical Congenital Heart Disease, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't pick up the kind of defects that cause cardiac arrest and heart attack in young athletes.
I assume more extensive screening is seen as cost prohibitive.
@OhmyRyzen: Fortunately they are doing more pre screening for potential parents and in utero and post birth screening for certain conditions with babies but a full work up probably would be an enormous cost. It will always be a bit damned if you do and damned if you don’t. How do you even start to put a monetary value on a life?
Then you have the heart issues caused by someone getting a virus that affects the heart muscles. That will be the interesting one going forward for people who got Covid.
I think life is a lottery. We are the product of all the previous familial genetics. You do the best you can and do the cost benefit analysis.
Perhaps its because women who want unvaxxed sperm are not the type of women that can attract men to pregnify* them in the usual way?
Either/or the men who are unvaxxed are not the type of men that women want to fall pregnant to in the usual way.
(*yes, I know)
Even if covid vaxxes = some sort of genetic or reproductive impact, let's face it, the planet will breath a sigh of relief and ironically the God botherers and hard right knucke draggers will have to accept it was Gods will.