Those of you who had Covid....

[WTF11]

Not disgraceful and once again you misconstrue what is being said. I am not an anti backer but there is a lot of information out there in published studies which challenges and asks sensible questions.

Today the UK official research into effectiveness was published which shows the vaccines are not as effective for as long as was hoped. I have had the vaccine as I have stated before but I would not be so arrogant as to force that decision on others especially the young for whom the considerations are a little different.

You clearly are neither a scientist nor a medic as your logic and arguments seem to rely upon you always being right irrespective of the facts before you.

I find your tone and comments often immature and highly offensive and as I have gently said to you many times before play the ball not the person.

There was a phrase that comes to mind from when I was younger and lived in Leeds - Waddock.

"A lot of information out there"..........perhaps that would bear greater scrutiny if you were able to quote/refer to peer-reviewed, publicly available studies by reputable and globally recognised professionals/scientists, whose work can be subject to rigorous review?

Watch this, for an example of someone who isn't a scientist, but has grey matter between his ears, on the rapidly expanding Facebook "factsphere" that is allowing non-science to be presented as fact, supporting the likes of QAnon, racists, etc. It doesn't refer to Covid, as the speech was given before the pandemic, but it hits every nail on the head when it comes to calling out the trend towards acceptance of social media outlets as factual, simply because they exist on Facebook or Twitter, or whatever other sh1te people are being hoodwinked into believing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM

(It's the full speech, 24 minutes, but well worth watching)

As to other parts of your post, you refer to the longevity of the antibodies generated via the vaccines. The programme was always going to be a subject for review (i.e. bit hard to establish a longevity of more than a year when the vaccines haven't been administered for that long), so the recent news that some antibodies last for less than a year is hardly a surprise and certainly ISN'T grounds for not getting vaccinated in the first place no matter what your age. Using antibody longevity to question the benefit of vaccination whilst ignoring all other benefits that the vaccines provide (e.g. protection against passing on the virus to others etc), is "selective" to say the least.

None of the above are my opinions, but publicly available fact, so no, I DO NOT rely on always being right (about Leeds, yes, but not about Covid), I depend on the EVIDENCE that can and should be scrutinised, rather than vague assertions made that "there is lots of information available" without a shred of such evidence being presented as to the source, its review, those responsible for such review etc. There are ethics committees the world over who have worked tirelessly to make sure quality materials are available (I know, I have helped develop and implement the workflow technologies that help them work), perhaps you should make reference to some if you deign to respond?