The vaccine is rolling out

[Deleted member 1333509]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32101-4/fulltext

Sure that's the same thing I brought up about Pakistan and we established that they've made a big deal about a number of polio cases that amounts to less than 0.00000000004.7169811% of the population. (maybe the smallest statistic you'll ever be quoted btw).

Obviously we're both intelligent enough to agree that 76 cases in a year in a country of 212M people is completely laughable are hardly "anti-vaxxers causing a 3rd type of polio to have a stronghold in a countries with a mistrust of vaccines".

What are these other countries you're talking about where there's a stronghold of the 3rd type of polio because of the mistrust of vaccines? Or you're really concerned about the anti-vaccination sentiment in Pakistan causing these 76 causes??

I mean, it was up from 12 cases the year before.. so I guess international news coverage makes sense

(Side note: in case it's not obvious, the underpinning message of what I'm getting at here is that you've digested what amounts to propaganda about a crisis caused by anti-vaxxers, when really there is no crisis, in this case at least, and instead once you drill down into it you see a story that has been packaged to elicit a response from you (aka "anti-vaxxers are a big problem that cause polio resurgences) while in reality it's a fabricated narrative that isn't based in reality. The media are cunts and they do this ^^^^ all the time).

 

[redjebo]

I guess 76 cases of the Bubonic plague in the US wouldn't be news worthy too then.

 

[Preon]

Sure that's the same thing I brought up about Pakistan and we established that they've made a big deal about a number of polio cases that amounts to less than 0.00000000004.7169811% of the population. (maybe the smallest statistic you'll ever be quoted btw).

Obviously we're both intelligent enough to agree that 76 cases in a year in a country of 212M people is completely laughable are hardly "anti-vaxxers causing a 3rd type of polio to have a stronghold in a countries with a mistrust of vaccines".

What are these other countries you're talking about where there's a stronghold of the 3rd type of polio because of the mistrust of vaccines? Or you're really concerned about the anti-vaccination sentiment in Pakistan causing these 76 causes??

I mean, it was up from 12 cases the year before.. so I guess international news coverage makes sense

I'm assuming because it was nearly wiped out but has increased in numbers recently. As I understand it, Afghanistan was impacted by the same social media misinformation.

Quick question, why are you so intent on fact checking anything that is pro vaccine but let all the wild claims by antivaxxers slide by?

 

[AngelSeo]

From your link. Opening paragraph

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

What part of that definition is "vaccine herd immunity" in fact I can't find any definition of it being called "vaccine herd immunity"

It's either a vaccine or it's herd immunity.

A vaccine can "help" achieve herd immunity IF that is even a thing. They are NOT the same.

You are talking nonsense mate. Herd immunity simply means that certain percentage of the population have immunity against a disease - how exactly this immunity is achieved is separate question. For example if 9 from 10 people in a room who recently recovered from Covid you can say that in this specific room there is "heard immunity". If you have the very same room with 9 out of 10 people vaccinated against Covid, again you can say that there is "heard immunity". Is simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

I'm assuming because it was nearly wiped out but has increased in numbers recently. As I understand it, Afghanistan was impacted by the same social media misinformation.

Quick question, why are you so intent on fact checking anything that is pro vaccine but let all the wild claims by antivaxxers slide by?

That's not what you said though. You didn't mention almost being wiped out, did you? You didn't say "Because of antivaxxers, Two types of polio have been wiped out, the remaining type has a stronghold in countries with a strong mistrust of vaccines, although really what I mean by "stronghold" is less than 0.0000001% of the population".

If you don't like people fact checking your statements and correcting them, say accurate things mate. The reason I checked what you said (now and previously) is because you've said them directly to me. I don't feel an obligation to check every single thing, just the things you're trying to make me believe are reality.

What's really interesting is that for all of the "social misinformation" in Pakistan around vaccines, that only 76 people caught it in a year (up from 12 ). What that means is that the "social misinformation" was actually that people needed to take the polio vaccine to stop it from becoming significant.

You've got to ask yourself an obvious question as well at this point.. How come there is such a widespread distrust for vaccines in many globally diverse populations? I mean it's not needles, because there's not a widespread anti-needle movement. It's not all medicines, because anti-vaxxers take medicines all day and night, no problem.

Why specifically vaccines? Is it just because of some nefarious agenda to stop people from getting healthy? What would be the reason to want to make people arbitrarily distrust vaccines? Is it just because of the coronavirus vaccines? No because there was already a fairly well established anti-vaccination "movement" before covid.

Strange that this one area of medicine has such a high level of distrust.

 

[Preon]

That's not what you said though. You didn't mention almost being wiped out, did you? You didn't say "Because of antivaxxers, Two types of polio have been wiped out, the remaining type has a stronghold in countries with a strong mistrust of vaccines, although really what I mean by "stronghold" is less than 0.0000001% of the population".

If you don't like people fact checking your statements and correcting them, say accurate things mate. The reason I checked what you said (now and previously) is because you've said them directly to me. I don't feel an obligation to check every single thing, just the things you're trying to make me believe are reality.

What's really interesting is that for all of the "social misinformation" in Pakistan around vaccines, that only 76 people caught it in a year (up from 12 ). What that means is that the "social misinformation" was actually that people needed to take the polio vaccine to stop it from becoming significant.

I didn't say anything to you just now.

Polio is present in countries and could have been wiped out of those countries if there wasn't antivaxx mistrust.

Is that better?

There's a good chance some kid has long term health impacts because of this.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Polio is present in countries and could have been wiped out of those countries if there wasn't antivaxx mistrust.

Is that better?

Sure.

There's a good chance some kid has long term health impacts because of this.

I'm not even sure what this is meant to be - a guilt trip? Should I feel bad about saying what I said now or what? The way you think is really interesting.

Just when it looks like you've used up all of the slippery word-twisting available, you find another one in your back pocket..

Don't worry about "some kid", that may or may not exist and neither of us will ever know.. worry about the accuracy of your statements if you want them to be taken seriously.

 

[Preon]

Sure.


I'm not even sure what this is meant to be - a guilt trip? Should I feel bad about saying what I said now or what?

Just when I think you've used up all of the slippery word-twisting available, you find another one in your back pocket..

Don't worry about "some kid", that may or may not exist and neither of us will ever know.. worry about the accuracy of your statements if you want them to be taken seriously.

I'm not trying to make you feel anything.

This isn't some academic journal, I don’t need to provide Harvard style citations for every opinion. Nor do I need to write without expressing emotions, disappointment or speculating on what might have happened. You're not critiquing my dissertation as I verbally defend it for my MSc.

If you want to support antivaxx sentiment, then im not going to hold that against you.

 

[fc-dh]

Great but i am not going to let myself being injected with stuff that is state secret and where nobody has any responsibility for when the shit hits te fan

Go ahead have fun with your vacation, you can have mine too if you like!

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

I'm not trying to make you feel anything.

This isn't some academic journal, I don’t need to provide Harvard style citations for every opinion. Nor do I need to write without expressing emotions, disappointment or speculating on what might have happened. You're not critiquing my dissertation as I verbally defend it for my MSc.

If you want to support antivaxx sentiment, then im not going to hold that against you.

If I said to you "I know that vaccines cause cancer and kill unborn babies in pregnant women" you'd call me on it, I'm just reciprocating.

You're happy to critique the way anti-vaxxers think, you should be prepared for someone to critique your logic as well. It's not meant with malice, but it's the nature of sharing ideas and disputing which ones are bullshit and which ones aren't.

You don't need Harvard citations mate, but you sure as hell aren't going to be throwing around the idea that there's some rampant problem with anti-vaccination in some countries that has caused a resurgence of a polio strain and then not get called on what you're specifically talking about. No need for a Harvard citation, just accuracy in your words man. All the best anyway.

 

[CreativeDaddy]

Finally some good news for my offline businesses.

 

[Preon]

If I said to you "I know that vaccines cause cancer and kill unborn babies in pregnant women" you'd call me on it, I'm just reciprocating.

You're happy to critique the way anti-vaxxers think, you should be prepared for someone to critique your logic as well. It's not meant with malice, but it's the nature of sharing ideas and disputing which ones are bullshit and which ones aren't.

You don't need Harvard citations mate, but you sure as hell aren't going to be throwing around the idea that there's some rampant problem with anti-vaccination in some countries that has caused a resurgence of a polio strain and then not get called on what you're specifically talking about. No need for a Harvard citation, just accuracy in your words man. All the best anyway.

Just as well everything I've said has truth to it.

But you're happy to suggest that vaccines might contain microchips.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

But you're happy to suggest that vaccines might contain microchips.

Now you're either being slow or dishonest.

I'm guessing you find the idea that there are microchips in vaccines ridiculous.

So if what you care about is the truth, you should extend that to the fact that the truth is that you don't know for sure that's not true, right? I mean you couldn't possibly know that there are no covid vaccines that have microchips added to them, that the people that do tests on the vaccines wouldn't either be complicit or unable to detect the microchips, that they weren't added after testing etc etc etc

Now does that mean we all freak out about microchipped vaccines? No. In fact I find the idea that microchips are in vaccines highly unlikely and laughable precisely because if you wanted to achieve that you wouldn't need vaccines to do it, you could use tap water, food or whatever that didn't require a pandemic, so it's a logical fallacy from the beginning.

Let me know if there are any other common English words that you have no idea of the meaning of.

 

[Preon]

Now you're either being slow or dishonest.










Let me know if there are any other common English words that you have no idea of the meaning of.

No worries mate.

 

[nakamura]

Countries like Germany now doing the full lockdown to get more acceptance for the vaccine. They want to break the will of the people. Bring them into a very desperate situation where the people think "If everyone gets the vaccine, everything is going back to get back to normal".

Very difficult to judge whether this is the case. Personally, I don't think so. Of course, I hope everything gets back to normal asap.

By the way, did you guys see what the European Union is trying to do? Basically, they want to regulate the internet with the new Digital Service Act even more:
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-the-eu-plans-to-rewrite-the-rules-for-the-internet/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/di...s-act-could-make-or-break-european-democracy/

As I wrote in the other thread, I won't take the vaccine for two reasons:

1) No one is taking responsibility if something goes wrong or if there are some bad side effects (especially long term!)
2) I am perfectly fine and healthy. No smoking, alcohol, work out frequently, no overweight, no chronic diseases and according to several studies and stats the chance I am going to die from this virus is basically below 0,1%.

Now the question is:

What is more likely to happen? That I die from the virus? Or that I will suffer from the vaccine?

Everyone has to decide this by themselves. Terms like "Anti-Vaxxer" etc. are not helpful, they are only dividing the people.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

By the way, did you guys see what the European Union is trying to do? Basically, they want to regulate the internet with the new Digital Service Act even more:
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-the-eu-plans-to-rewrite-the-rules-for-the-internet/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/di...s-act-could-make-or-break-european-democracy/

The gradual policing of the internet is absolutely inevitable, and as that happens the dark net and new versions of it will become way more popular... not for finding drugs and weapons, but for just being able to have conversations online that you know won't be regulated and stored for all eternity.

Social media will be at the forefront of it. They're already gradually policing their communities more and more, even with it going in direct contradiction of Section 230, and they're going to be more than happy to be the catalyst for a completely new internet with more surveillance and controls, as long as they're they once that are running the show (aka making a fuckton of money and remaining as monopolies of online social interaction).

Imagine this for example - a law is brought in that any kind of website that has a community aspect is required by law to do KYC. So in order for BHW to operate, it would have to take KYC for every one of us. That's going to be coming at some point in the future, and other laws that will squeeze out smaller communities and will centralise everything within the handful of hyper-communities that are already in existence.

The internet is now the core of human civilisation.. the nervous system of earth. Information is the most valuable thing in the world other than time, and if you think the internet is going to be a bastion of liberty and free expression in the future it's going to be a gigantic disappointment. We'll have enough freedom to use it to create commercial value for society, not enough to have anything like the freedom we have today.

 

[AngelSeo]

Countries like Germany now doing the full lockdown to get more acceptance for the vaccine. They want to break the will of the people. Bring them into a very desperate situation where the people think "If everyone gets the vaccine, everything is going back to get back to normal".

Very difficult to judge whether this is the case. Personally, I don't think so. Of course, I hope everything gets back to normal asap.

By the way, did you guys see what the European Union is trying to do? Basically, they want to regulate the internet with the new Digital Service Act even more:
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-the-eu-plans-to-rewrite-the-rules-for-the-internet/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/di...s-act-could-make-or-break-european-democracy/

As I wrote in the other thread, I won't take the vaccine for two reasons:

1) No one is taking responsibility if something goes wrong or if there are some bad side effects (especially long term!)
2) I am perfectly fine and healthy. No smoking, alcohol, work out frequently, no overweight, no chronic diseases and according to several studies and stats the chance I am going to die from this virus is basically below 0,1%.

Now the question is:

What is more likely to happen? That I die from the virus? Or that I will suffer from the vaccine?

Everyone has to decide this by themselves. Terms like "Anti-Vaxxer" etc. are not helpful, they are only dividing the people.

Sorry mate, but 0.1% are AWFUL chances of survival for young and healthy human. Vaccines usually cause death at rates of about 1-3 to 100 000 (0.00001) which is whole lot better than 1 to 1000 (0.1). Also implying that Germany is locking down to increase the acceptance of the vaccine is bullshit. They had even worse lockdown without vaccine being over the horizon. This is pure thinfoil hat thinking.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Sorry mate, but 0.1% are AWFUL chances of survival for young and healthy human. Vaccines usually cause death at rates of about 1-3 to 100 000 (0.00001) which is whole lot better than 1 to 1000 (0.1). Also implying that Germany is locking down to increase the acceptance of the vaccine is bullshit. They had even worse lockdown without vaccine being over the horizon. This is pure thinfoil hat thinking.

99.9% chance of survival is not awful at all, what are you talking about? (guessing you didn't mean 0.1% chance of survival)

If me and 999 other people catch covid simultaneously, I would have the be the 1 that died from it, while the other 999 people lived. Where did you get 99.9% being "awful" from?

Fun fact: it's not precisely 99.9% anyway, and more likely 99.995% or something, so that would be like 5 in 100,000 would die if that was the case.

Where's the stat of 1-3 per 100,000? Where the stats for negative outcomes other than death from vaccines too?

442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days of taking a vaccine: https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00225-0/pdf
53 deaths from Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by the vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

Also in that last one, read this:



They abruptly stopped the vaccination program because unexpectedly high cases of swine flu were being detected in vaccinated individuals but not outside of the base where people weren't being vaccinated.

This doesn't mean vaccines are all bad, but it shows tangible evidence that things can go wrong with vaccines, and these were tested for years and deemed 100% safe.

For anyone that's bamboozled by why anti-vaxxers think the way they do, it's because their concerns are based in reality. Some then go off the deep end and think all vaccines are evil and microchipped, but their worries don't come out of thin air. Vaccines can be dangerous and do things that are unexpectedly negative for your health.

 

[Struggle]

Greetings from Lituania! Currently, we have a dramatic increase in cases and now everything will be closed until the end of January.
The anti wax movement here is pretty low, but those mentally challenged people can be heard sometimes. We even had anti-mask rally which miserably failed.
People marching against all the idea of covid sickness keeps on forgetting that we have to count not only the death rate (which is higher than season flu) but also that it is a nasty disease, which f*cks with your body and harms your respirato

Personally, I would like to get vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Let's face it, the vaccine is the key to freedom again, soon there will be almost a year when the whole world is living in the fricking fear... Sadly, but some things will not be the same as it was before covid.

 

[AngelSeo]

99.9% chance of survival is not awful at all, what are you talking about? (guessing you didn't mean 0.1% chance of survival)

If me and 999 other people catch covid simultaneously, I would have the be the 1 that died from it, while the other 999 people lived. Where did you get 99.9% being "awful" from?

Fun fact: it's not precisely 99.9% anyway, and more likely 99.995% or something, so that would be like 5 in 100,000 would die if that was the case.

Where's the stat of 1-3 per 100,000? Where the stats for negative outcomes other than death from vaccines too?

442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days of taking a vaccine: https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00225-0/pdf
53 deaths from Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by the vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

Also in that last one, read this:



They abruptly stopped the vaccination program because unexpectedly high cases of swine flu were being detected in vaccinated individuals but not outside of the base where people weren't being vaccinated.

This doesn't mean vaccines are all bad, but it shows tangible evidence that things can go wrong with vaccines, and these were tested for years and deemed 100% safe.

For anyone that's bamboozled by why anti-vaxxers think the way they do, it's because their concerns are based in reality. Some then go off the deep end and think all vaccines are evil and microchipped, but their worries don't come out of thin air. Vaccines can be dangerous and do things that are unexpectedly negative for your health.

Sorry dude but you do NOT read the articles that you send, except the part that support your claims when you get it OUTSIDE of the context. For example "442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days" -> this is total deaths per 100 000 people and is NOT death related to vaccination AT all - deaths that would occur naturally, regardless of vaccine or not. Did you read who died the most? Oh what a surprise people over 85 year of age. Surprise indeed. Next:
53 deaths out of 45 million vaccinated gave what number exactly?
one Guillain-Barré syndrome case per 100,000 persons -> again what number you get? Oh yeah thats right - what I said. Total of 1-3 per 100k.
This is why anti-vaxxer are regarded as retarded idiots - because they refuse to read beyond anything that support their claims. Its called confirmation bias, and yeah, its idiocy.
And if you think that 0.1% chance to die is good for young healthy man - you are out of your mind, not to mention that your math is way off if you cannot see the difference between 0.1 and 0.00001.