O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[KerrAvon]

Wasn't meant to insult frog - just a whimsical acknowledgement of the link sharer's chosen salutation. Made me laugh.

I watched much of the link - I despair that we are highlighting Piers Morgan's ignorance in thinking that the vaccine's were able to stop transition. I mean I'm no biologist or medical guy, but it was clear to me and most people that read the basics that the vaccine was designed to reduce impact of infection, and in my opinion, evidence with my own eyes, links with care fomes and hospitals where we were struggling to keep pace with the corpses in the first year, as well as following trends of death reduction in such areas once the vaccination was rolled out makes the pros and cons of the vaccination fall in favour of the pros. It was an unprecedented situation, many decisions made quickly and errors of judgement made which I think is as to be expected from human beings who hadn't done as goodf a job on pandemic prep for a quite predictable coronavirus outbreak. I'm all for the enquiries and conclusions to come, and for public scrutiny to be tight on them, so that we can learn from it. And that includes whether due attention was paid to the vaccines rolled out, and corruption within the process. What I struggle with is pre judging and sharing of skewed information ('we were told it would stop the virus', 'it made me poorly') from people who have as little understanding of medical biology as I do.

The involvement of Piers Morgan made me laugh and feel despair at the same time. How he would be held out as the authority on anything other than populist and unscrupulous journalism is beyond me.

Repeated studies have shown that the vaccines did reduce transmission, which is unsurprising that they would inevitably reduce the viral load of those who were vaccinated. A phrase as cumbersome but nuanced as that wouldn’t really land with Morgan's audience, however.

[frogmiller]

The involvement of Piers Morgan made me laugh and feel despair at the same time. How he would be held out as the authority on anything other than populist and unscrupulous journalism is beyond me.

Repeated studies have shown that the vaccines did reduce transmission, which is unsurprising that they would inevitably reduce the viral load of those who were vaccinated. A phrase as cumbersome but nuanced as that wouldn’t really land with Morgan's audience, however.

Piers Morgan was behind the mass media campaigne to get vaccinated and was very critical of those that didn't

Everyone on that video spent time on TV or other Media to encorrage people to get the vaccine. Over time they have changed their minds.

You again just concentrate on denouncing someones character without seemingly taking into account what they are saying at any given time. When Morgan was advocating the vaccine you probably had a different view of him.

How can someone who says they investigate things be trusted to have a nuetral base if they're not displaying it?

[ragingpup]

Piers Morgan was behind the mass media campaigne to get vaccinated and was very critical of those that didn't

Everyone on that video spent time on TV or other Media to encorrage people to get the vaccine. Over time they have changed their minds.

You again just concentrate on denouncing someones character without seemingly taking into account what they are saying at any given time. When Morgan was advocating the vaccine you probably had a different view of him.

How can someone who says they investigate things be trusted to have a nuetral base if they're not displaying it?

Morgan, interested in attracting viewers was absolutely hyperbolic on stating that everyone should rush out and get jabbed without truly understanding the way viruses work. He is now saying that there is 'not much difference' in terms of transmission rates - but of course doesn't go into what the research tells us on the extent that transmission is reduced or tell us where he is getting his factual information on which he bases these claims? Probably the same overstated hysteria that led him to make the claims that transmission completely stops transmission. He clearly isn't very good at research. Can't be bothered. Just reads headlines and forms an eye catching narrative to get views and hits. He's good at that. But I wouldn't link him to anything that supported an argument I was trying to make. And he's a knob.

Do you accept that having the virus has any effect on reducing your own personal syptoms, regardless of transmission? If not, what medical research is informing that?

Do you deny that having the virus has any impact on reducing transmission? None at all? If you are in agreement with Morgan and say it's 'not much difference' that must indicate that there has been a study that shows this? Morgan doesn't provide us with this - can you or Mr Optimist?