SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Feel free to dissect or refute it then and tell me where I’m wrong.
If not, then you’re just dodging whatever is being said/peoples legitimate concerns and questions.
Well, lots of this post is incorrect. The vaccines more than marginally reduce risk of hospitalisation and also reduce chances of infection (Omicron outcomes pending of course). The data is unequivocal and based on vast sample sizes.
Also your analogy of going for a run isn't comparable. Vaccinating populations has a cumulative benefit to all in the limitation of the spread of an infectious disease. There is no such parable in your running. It's not an exaggerated example: it's not equivalent.
Also, which clause of the Nuremburg code is being violated? You could argue, I guess, that prevention of taking certain jobs, for instance, due to an unvaccinated status is a limitation of rights (although there are many precedents pre Covid) but by no stretch of the imagination does that breach the Nuremburg code. I assume you mean clause 1:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Are you arguing ulterior coercion?
Just use the ignore function. There is zero upside in engaging with them.
Yes, I’m not arguing that. I’m saying, what does it matter then if those are vaccinated and those that aren’t. Surely the ones vaccinated should feel confident having less chances of hospitalization/infection. Otherwise it goes against its own logic.
Will get back on the code later on today (too much to bring up atm for me). In the meantime, what happened to herd immunity? And speaking of which, why are those who were infected and gained natural immunity not considered protected and immune at all? Zero talk of it. When there’s been multiple case studies showing that those with natural protection are actually better off than those with vaccinated protection. In fact it offers better and much longer lasting immunity. Yet that’s not even on the table?
…you know something’s wrong when the scientific process can’t even be brought up. When no scrutiny/questions/concerns are allowed and only 1 way is deemed acceptable and the way out, even for those that factually have received better protection in another form but aren’t even acknowledged. Would love to hear a reason for that.
I got mine on Monday. Arm hurt much worse (but not that bad) and I was a bit fevery through the first night. Arm nearly back to normal 56 hrs after getting booster.
Well done. Sometimes harder to make the right decision. When you have it later it will be even better I'd guess.
Question (for you or anyone really):
do you know if the booster/even the 2nd shot, are the same as the 1st? Or are they different?
Chickenpox eradicated 
In order:
Vaccination requires as much of the population to be vaccinated as possible to be effective. It's different levels for different diseases but, no matter, the principle stands. So people being unvaccinated causes many problems:
i) The disease will continue to spread at higher levels than necessary
ii) The unvaccinated will get ill impacting health services
iii) Further lockdown protocols will be required impacting all
iv) Vaccinated people will be at more risk of catching the illness inversely to the population vaccination rate and although they're far less likely to get very ill and die, more will the more unvaccinated people there are.
It doesn't "go against its own logic"
Your second paragraph is difficult to understand but, yes, prior infection clearly offers a level of protection and it's talked about a lot in the media, in the literature and in this very thread. In short, vacc is better and vacc plus prior infection better still. There's data everywhere on this.
You've lost me entirely on the third point. In what sense can the scientific method not be brought up? What method do you think is in underpinning the subject we, and all the World, are right now discussing and debating? What factual better protection are you referring to? If you think people are getting irritated with you in this thread because they fear scrutiny then you've got the wrong end the stick.
If you get the same vaccine, then yes, they're the same.
That had nothing to do with vaccination or public health measure. It was to stop involuntary torture and experimentation by people like Mengele. Nobody is being experimented on here unless they are art of a study and then they sign up for it. Even mentioning the Nuremberg code is ludicrous and you would be better improving the fit of your tin foil hat.
It is voluntary. You have a choice. If you don't like the consequences well tough luck but that is different.
I want to drive a car but you can't make me pass a test and get a driving licence. Oh wait .....
I have a notifiable disease. You can't stop me working in a hospital or hospitality. Oh wait ...
I want a job as a doctor but i don't want to go to University you can't stop me operating in people. Oh wait.
I want to be a teacher but I don't want to get a working with children check to make sure I'm not a kiddy fiddler and you can't stop me. Oh wait ...
Was a silly example. A fitter population is obviously a good thing but not running isn't going to overwhelm the health service this week and someone being unfit isn't going to kill other people (unless you get very fat and fall on people).
Such a blanket statement hide fact. Immunisation and booster massively reduces your chance of getting covid, hugeky reduces the chances of you passing it on if you do get it and reduces the severity of disease for just about everyone.
There is nothing marginal about it. In Victorian Australia (currently over 90% of adults fully vaxxed) 91% of those in ICU weren't fully vaccinated and 88% were totally unvaccinated. A tad more than marginal I'd say.
Because they are. Potentially (or very likely) you are getting covid and passing it on to someone who will suffer harm or even die.
Fat unfit people aren't harming me or my family. The unvaccinated are. If you want the benefits that society brings you also need to take your responsibility to others seriously. If you refuse to then you can't justifiably cry that society is being mean to you.[/quote]
Last edited:
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Vaccines normally produce antibodies and memory cell such as b-cells and t-cells. Antibodies wane after the vaccine in the absence of infection but if infection occurs in the future memory cells produce antibodies faster than if it was a novel infection. This is what will happen when we move from a pandemic to covid being endemic. This will take a while as we need to vaccinate the world and not just the developed world. Variants will then either stop arising or do so far less often. After that we may or may not need true boosters if memory cells wane over time or a new variant requires a tweaked vaccine but it likely won't be every 6 months or even annually. The current booster program is to keep as many people as possible with active antibodies in their bloodstream to gets us through this pandemic stage by limiting infections and severity of disease as much as possible.
And why would you object to regular vaccination anyway? Not only is having your annual flu shot zero hassle but it is incredibly sensible. Why would anyone not want to have it?
I had AZ originally and the booster was Pfizer but it was the same dose as the original Pfizer shots. And all the available data suggests it hugely reduces disease severity including from Omicron compared to not having the booster.
Last edited:
Maybe this was already answered, i see many mentioning how there seems big difference between 2 shots vs booster, is that 2 shots in general or 2 shots that happened like 8 months ago?
Got my 2nd shot 2 months ago, so just wondering.
Got my 2nd shot 2 months ago, so just wondering.
Are you aware that 25% of those who contract covid while unvaccinated end up with Zero natural immunity?
You mention the vaccines giving marginal protection. Marginal is just completely false.
Where exactly are you getting all your information from?
point being, the mention of reaching herd immunity in many places has been thrown out the window and forgotten about.
i) the disease will spread regardless or vaccination or not. Look at some of the most vaccinated places in the world. They’re actually the ones with the most cases right now. Antibiotic resistance (mutation) is a thing and clear with these vaccines.
ii) yes as do the vaccinated. To what ratio? Difficult to draw any hard line because some places have higher% vaccinated hospitalized than unvaccinated and in other places it’s vice versa.
iii) lockdowns, through their own track record, have shown that they don’t really work and in fact provide more harm to society than good. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/30/covid-19-lockdowns-caused-more-deaths-instead-of-r/
iv) ok so if one’s vaccinated and one isn’t, bottom line is the latter shouldn’t have any moral obligation to cater to anyone. There’s been more than enough time for people to get vaccinated. Lockdowns made sense early on when it wasn’t a possibility but now more than a year later, it’s clear people have had adequate time.
Feel free to show me where it shows vax is “better” and what your “better” constitutes as. There’s also tons of inverse data available for what I’m mentioning, in fact the biggest study which was done in Israel proving superior natural immunity.
And what’s the point of acknowledging natural immunity when it doesn’t count for those that caught covid and it’s proven it’s more effective than the vaccine alone? What percentage of populations have had covid — tens of hundreds of millions (billions?) of people across the world. Yet no acceptance of them unless they take a shot. Where’s the science in that? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1.full.pdf
Ohh okay, thank you. I wonder why they continue to use the original vaccines when there are strain-specific vaccines made since which are supposedly more optimal.
This thread has it all. Nearly every page contains really informative posts that break down the latest medical news and data from studies in a way that idiots like me can understand easily (thanks and shout outs to @jojojo , @Pogue Mahone and @Wibble ). I never have anything substantial enough to add to this thread but it's probably the most invaluable thread on this forum and one that I read daily.
And then every couple of pages you get an antivaxxer chiming in with their PhD from the University of Facebook. Some great laughs to be had when these guys inevitably make a huge tit out of themself, despite it being quite scary how so many people eat this shit up from social media.
And then every couple of pages you get an antivaxxer chiming in with their PhD from the University of Facebook. Some great laughs to be had when these guys inevitably make a huge tit out of themself, despite it being quite scary how so many people eat this shit up from social media.
pfizer and other such companies have admitted saying in their own documents, referring to their vaccines as “experimental”. If that makes me a tinfoil then it makes them also. There’s a reason why they’re not FDA approved and still being used under the label of emergency use. But again if you want to title me as something, I’m not stopping you.
it’s voluntary but if you don’t take it, then you can’t live your life. Gotcha.
Test. That would suffice actually with covid. I whole heartedly agree. As was the case only a few months back. I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds. Implement the same thing you’re saying with flu shot in the past. Imagine if that was mandatory. If it wasn’t necessary then, it shouldn’t be for this either. For moral/ethical reasons. https://nationalpost-com.cdn.amppro.../wcm/c4659b2a-31ad-453c-a070-0331eea0cfc8/amp
Once again, yes I’m not denying that. So the people that are vaccinated shouldn’t have a problem around those unvaccinated (as was the case with the flu / flu shot) since they have lower odds to contract said virus via the shot and to be seriously hurt by it in comparison. It made sense and wasn’t necessary then but for some reason isn’t the case now.
I can list a handful of places who’s data shows more vaccinated were hospitalized than unvaccinated and also vice versa. The truth is, it varies so much that any ‘side’ can weaponize it for whatever narrative they deem fitting. Whether it’s a state/province like Vermont or city or even country like Scotland/Israel, theres data that contradicts but doesn’t provide any sort of hard line as it really does vary place to place.
Already addressed this.
People didn’t sign up for such a thing. You can’t retroactively implement stuff like this and pretend people were told to abide by this all along. It was never the case before for a reason. Because of morals/ethics. Which has been breached. One can quite easily argue “fat unfit” people are the ones using up tax dollars when they have complications down the line and require treatment. Point being, they’re still not denied service or demonized as those unvaccinated to covid are right now. As a society, you can’t just pick and choose who and who not to accept. That’s immoral and being made up on the fly.
If that’s what you want to label me/my opinions as sure. And no I am not.
Because people have the right to? Same reason people object to a regular healthy lifestyle whether it be through their physical fitness or diet. Who are we to force upon others. Yes we may recommend and propose options but always with a choice which is ultimately up to said person. I don’t regularly take flu shots because I’m confident in my well being as of recent. When I was unwell 4 odd years ago with terminal illness, I took the flu shot in the best interest of myself knowing my body was definitely vulnerable. I just spoke to my specialist at the hospital this Monday for my annual checkup and thankfully, she doesn’t demonize others/me like some people out there do to others. We can carry out a normal conversation and respect one another. Since my checkups happen in December, I spoke to her December of 2019 and mentioned covid to her then. I was aware of it having followed independent journalists that were mentioning it since October of that year and was concerned for my well-being, being someone who was previously “compromised” (despite being recovered now). I said doc, have you heard about this virus. She said very generally she’s been following with her other colleagues. I said I know it’s absurd to ask but what do you predict will come of it? She said don’t quote me on it (which funny enough I’m doing right now), “but I think they’ll develop a seasonal shot for it like the flu”. Turns out, she was bang on and we still talk about it. She respects my opinions and doesn’t think of me as some numpty or “tin foil”. In fact, I show up with published papers to pick her brain and she teaches me quite a bit. Regarding the morals/ethics, she full on agrees with me and said just this week it’s scary that there’s no knowing where this will lead to and herself referenced places like Australia/Germany/Austria.
& this whole labelling of tin-foil hat for anyone that doesn’t see eye-to-eye with your beliefs, just know that it (hesitancy/concerns/questions/tin foil/whatever you want to call it) stems from the medical community itself. And that’s how it leaks out to populations. This may be news to you or others but let me tell you, not all scientists/doctors/researchers/regulators agree across the board. They are the ones who question and raise concerns among their own fields and it’s always been the case. Just because what people are seeing (very 1-sided) on mainstream media doesn’t mean the other ‘side’ doesn’t exist. Because it surely does. It for whatever reason doesn’t get the coverage thus most people think, ‘the science is unanimous’, when it’s far from it. So when you jump the gun to throw labels around to people who are being respectful, not idiots, and have concerns or their own reasons (whatever it may be, definitely not anyone’s business other than the person themself…like how it was in the past and common decency not to invade in others personal and private medical history) not to do a certain thing that you or others have, just know that you’re also labelling the same to a portion of the medical community who initiate these discussions…..no offence taken, in fact thank you for your time. I just wanted to make that clear and hope you enjoy your day
Last edited:
Crazy then how this happened in August…
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
Again, I beg you, just post “I don’t know what I’m talking about” and be done with it.
Know the difference between fully licensed vaccines and those authorized under the EUA. EUA are are considered “experimental” under law. Fully licensed FDA approval means carrying liability which these vaccines do not. They’re “approved”, just not the way you thought of it.
…again, I wish my doctor knew more about this who said this is correct.
Johns Hopkins also seems to think that the Pfizer vaccine got fully approved by the FDA…
“The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine received full approval by the FDA on Aug. 23, 2021.
Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, explain what that means.
Review for full FDA approval is a normal step in the process of making a vaccine available for the public. One of the COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer) has full approval, and the FDA may grant full approval for others in the future.
Full FDA approval takes place when enough data demonstrate that the vaccines are safe and effective for most people who receive them, and when the FDA has had an opportunity to review and approve the whole vaccine manufacturing process and facilities.”
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...al-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know
Again, the link in your own post
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
another direct link:
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...virus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines
continued:
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...omirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
…..maybe the fda, pfizer, my specialist, and myself are all crazy. Could be but I’m definitely not going to bother anymore on this topic. It’s quite transparently written.
Definitely one of them.
you’re implying all of us then? Because like…..we’re all saying the same thing.I’m saying what they’re saying and they’re saying what I’m saying. From the horses mouth, not anyone else.
The EUA applies to the specific instances and groups listed later in the paragraph. You should have kept reading.
I’m saying what they’re saying and they’re saying what I’m saying. From the horses mouth, not anyone else.
as in, like everyone it’s authorized for?
so quite literally…..”authorized for emergency use and is available under the EUA”, for everyone of the ages that is eligible to receive it at any point.
There’s literally no omission or exception. Thank you for proving my/their point! Glad to see we agree on this
Simply put: No.as in, like everyone it’s authorized for?
so quite literally…..”authorized for emergency use and is available under the EUA”, for everyone of the ages that is eligible to receive it.
There’s literally no omission or exception. Thank you for proving my/their point! Glad to see we agree on this
It’s EUA for kids over 5. It’s EUA for kids over 12 who are immunocompromised. It’s EUA as a single booster dose for those over 16.
More reading, fewer emojis. You can do this!
No, it doesn't. America has distinct legal provisions that protect pharmaceutical companies from liability for vaccine outcomes (and they are common in other countries as well). You can read a nice summary about them below.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/index.html
Damn, your exact Candace Owens copyright argument was fact checked and debunked on August 26th
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...roved-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccine/5594543001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...roved-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccine/5594543001/
Debatable
I know you’re a staff member but what’s honestly going on here? You’re literally agreeing with me/them. The point you we’re trying to make is proven wrong by the fda itself. And it’s not “under” 5, it’s over. If that was a typo then you’ll see by reading it’s over 5.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...omirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
once you thoroughly read the bolded, you’ll soon realize and understand that the pfizer vaccines for all peoples it’s eligible for under all eligible ages…..are all, “authorized for emergency use and is available under the EUA”.
Quite honestly I’m not even trying to be demeaning. I’m just baffled that you can’t comprehend that. Like I said in the last post, there’s no omission. All the available vaccines from pfizer are available under the EUA. There’s not a single vaccine they have available outside of that.
Source: them.
Anyways sorry but I’m done with this discussion. I don’t know how much clearer the fda can be or myself in trying to explain it. Don’t want anymore of this endless cycle.
That was a typo that was immediately edited. Check the current post.
And here is the most straight forward explanation of it that I could find for you. If you can’t understand this, then you’re either hopeless or being intentional about it.
“While Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are still on emergency use authorization, or EUA, Pfizer received full FDA approval Aug. 23, 2021, for those 16 years and older; it is the only COVID-19 vaccine so far that has received full FDA approval in the United States. EUA remains for kids ages 12 through 15 years old, and in October 2021, EUA was expanded for children ages 5 through 11.”
https://www.dailycal.org/2021/12/09/vaccine/
I truly can’t comprehend why this is like pulling teeth to get you to realize it is saying that it is EUA for 5-11’s, 12-15’s who are immunocompromised, and as a booster for 16+, but that it is Fully Approved as a vaccine for all scenarios outside those parameters.
Ohh okay
Likewise, I don’t see the point in going to news organizations or media in trying to spin something a certain way when it’s available directly from them source itself. Until they (the FDA) say otherwise, it stands as the case. I think I read a judge in the US is currently pressing the point too as it’s misleading and confusing according to the FDAs own description which is up for anyone to see vs. what people perceived it as.
where are you getting 5-11 from? “is available under the EUA as a two-dose primary series for individuals 5 years of age and older”, the FDA clearly states 5+. That’s the entire scope of people eligible without omission.
…..if you can find where the FDA itself (and not any other outlet or source) says so, then I’ll gladly say I was incorrect. All I’m saying is they haven’t and it’s still up on their own damn website! Both my doctors/specialists said that’s correct the other day when asked. I’ll respectfully take their word over yours or some other non-primary source, Madness!!
5 and older obviously cuts off at 15 years and 364 days due to the presence of 16 years in the preceding approval statement. This shouldn't be hard to deduce.
They did. You just literally do not know how to read it.
I’m literally trying to help you read.
Not obvious at all. Dude(s!), my oncologists clearly told me and I’m not taking an ‘obvious’ assumption that you or anyone else makes.
The preceding “16 years” statement is about boosters. The former is about the primary dose. They’re completely irrelevant from one another. All that’s saying is the booster isn’t yet approved for ages 5-15 (16+ where it’s given the green light) whereas the primary 2 dose sequence is available for those ages and up (5+).
Last edited:
Respectfully, me and @Dr. Dwayne are reading something different to you.
Again, if we’re missing the boat please feel free to link it to the FDA and quote it. I haven’t seen that yet unless I missed it somewhere and you already shared it in which case I’m sorry.