O/T:- Vaccines: Pro/Anti & Conspiracy Theories [Originally Covid Pass and Meadow Ln.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CamPie

UTM is a classic case of only hearing / sharing reports that support his view. .

---

I've got to say I'm hugely impressed by everybody on the "other team", so to speak, sharing reports that DO NOT support their view. If only I could be as balanced and fair as you are. Perhaps I should watch the BBC and Covid ad funded commercial outlets more often to learn how to present both sides of the argument more fairly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

Here's a graph of the figures since September.

https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/.../VE-211216.png


Unadjusted meaning those who haven't had their booster yet and remember the double jabbed still have the green light to go about their normal business.

So it's going to be interesting to see how they persuade the double jabbed to get the 3rd shot. Do they start frightening them with the fact that double jabbed are now filling up the hospitals or do they continue to blame the unjabbed and run the risk of leaving the double jabbed to believe they have enough protection.


Or we can just pretend the figures are made up, run back to a peer reviewed paper published 6 months ago that the double jabbed are protected and it's now a tiny decreasing percentage of a minority of unvaxxed who haven't yet had Covid causing all of the chaos.

---

I know I'm a bit thick and don't really understand that graph.

They don't need to start frightening people - you are having a pretty good go.

Stats can say whatever you want them to.

How do you account for the stats in the EP fairly recently which said that out of 14 Covid patients in the QMC ITU, 12 were unjabbed? It's true that jabbed people are contracting Covid, but if say 100 jabbed people were in hospital and 50 unjabbed, you need to look at the %age that is of each group. It certainly would not back up an argument that you are best off unjabbed.

People I know who have had it have all said that they were reallly glad they were jabbed. Not one has said, 'There was no point, I wish I hadn't bothered'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie_mania

I know I'm a bit thick and don't really understand that graph.

They don't need to start frightening people - you are having a pretty good go.

Stats can say whatever you want them to.

How do you account for the stats in the EP fairly recently which said that out of 14 Covid patients in the QMC ITU, 12 were unjabbed? It's true that jabbed people are contracting Covid, but if say 100 jabbed people were in hospital and 50 unjabbed, you need to look at the %age that is of each group. It certainly would not back up an argument that you are best off unjabbed.

People I know who have had it have all said that they were reallly glad they were jabbed. Not one has said, 'There was no point, I wish I hadn't bothered'.

---

You're not being thick and you're absolutely right about stats.

The EP article doesn't stand up to what is presented by the stats that organise NHS ICU. We've got to accept now that unvaxxed are a considerable minority and that they cannot be constantly ill with Covid at all times, the majority will have natural immunity. Of the rest - they can only spread it for a few weeks and that's assuming they have or will definitely come down with it over the next month or two.
So who is spreading it now and filling up the hospitals?

They are asking double jabbed to get their booster for a reason.

The vast majority of us will be fine. If you haven't had Covid yet, you probably are going to get it eventually but if this variant is weak then now is as good a time as any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

"None of these has been shown to be effective".

Depending on who you believe.

---

I just composed a long reply and then hit cancel with my fat thumb!

Here’s a shorter version:

The first four I listed are obviously quack remedies peddled by charlatans.

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin were originally proposed without much evidence. Where are the properly conducted trials showing efficacy which have stood up to peer review? To believe in either of those two, as effective Covid treatments, now requires a belief that the vast majority of scientists working in relevant disciplines are part of a vast conspiracy to cover up their efficacy. Pardon me if I think that’s ridiculously far fetched.

Pfizer’s new pill, still in trials, is at the stage where it’s reasonable to be sceptical, until the trials are complete and the evidence of efficacy and safety are there to be peer reviewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie2

To believe in either of those two, as effective Covid treatments, now requires a belief that the vast majority of scientists working in relevant disciplines are part of a vast conspiracy to cover up their efficacy. Pardon me if I think that’s ridiculously far fetched.

.

---

It would be if you ignored the enormous unprecedented power big pharma now has. Think about big tech and how easy it is for them to shut down/marginalise and censor dissenting voices and rival platforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

You're not being thick and you're absolutely right about stats.

The EP article doesn't stand up to what is presented by the stats that organise NHS ICU. We've got to accept now that unvaxxed are a considerable minority and that they cannot be constantly ill with Covid at all times, the majority will have natural immunity. Of the rest - they can only spread it for a few weeks and that's assuming they have or will definitely come down with it over the next month or two.
So who is spreading it now and filling up the hospitals?

They are asking double jabbed to get their booster for a reason.

The vast majority of us will be fine. If you haven't had Covid yet, you probably are going to get it eventually but if this variant is weak then now is as good a time as any.

---

That’s two different questions. Anyone who is infected may be spreading it. Those unvaccinated are much more likely to be seriously ill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie2

That’s two different questions. Anyone who is infected may be spreading it. Those unvaccinated are much more likely to be seriously ill.

---

"likely to be" is dependent on age and health more than vax status, as has always been the case. To pretend vaxxed 70 year old is at less risk than an unvaxxed 15 year old is crazy talk.

How many elderly or at risk are still unvaxxed? The people now at risk are those who have been jabbed but haven't had their booster. Hence the current panic and shift in emphasis to get boosted, rather than on the unvaxxed to get vaxxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

It would be if you ignored the enormous unprecedented power big pharma now has. Think about big tech and how easy it is for them to shut down/marginalise and censor dissenting voices and rival platforms.

---

So big tech is in the pocket of big pharma, and so is the media? The conspiracy gets bigger. And almost all scientists are complicit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by applepie2

So big tech is in the pocket of big pharma, and so is the media? The conspiracy gets bigger. And almost all scientists are complicit?

---

It's political as well financially driven, it's no coincidence that there is practically no opposition to this agenda from the post modern left, which nobody can deny has captured almost all academic institutions and media giants.

Threads Merged and Retitled

I'm sure nobody will mind combining the two vaccine pro/anti threads into one so I've merged the two despite their differing original intentions and retitled the new combined thread to reflect this.

For the sake of clarity I have still received no guidance from FootyMad regarding any public health misinformation policy at this point.