Is there a thread about the vaccine(s)?

[The Traveler]

There's plenty of data showing now that the jabs do nothing to prevent spread

And again, this is the kind of comment that makes any other reaction impossible. Your comments demonstrate a lack of seriousness. This is why you find yourself marginalized.

For my work I regularly visit hospitals.

When they started the vaccination in my country you saw the average age on the IC for COVID patients drop rapidly. This is due to the elderly people being the first to get the vaccines.

So yes, vaccines help, and they help a lot.

Not only do these vaccines help to prevent people from contracting COVID, they even help the people who do get COVID to have less dangerous effects from it. Hospitalization numbers of people who where vaccinated and that did get COVID is dramatically lower than the people who did not get vaccinated.

This all from my experience in various hospitals.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[Voidmatrix]

I think it should be noted the vaccine researchers had a headstart with data in vaccine creation from the 2003/2004 SARS outbreak, and a shortcut in CRISPR technology.

Am I the only one noticing this devolving? Not surprising...

One love

 

[downwardsfromzero]

There's plenty of data showing now that the jabs do nothing to prevent spread

And again, this is the kind of comment that makes any other reaction impossible. Your comments demonstrate a lack of seriousness and disqualify you from serious discourse.

This article: Surging Covid and unlocking: does England risk being a variant factory? does a lot to clarify this aspect of the matter.

Although vaccines dramatically stem the likelihood of symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and death by weakening the ability of the virus to replicate within our bodies, it can still replicate to a certain extent, said Young, noting that there a few published cases of somewhat immuno-compromised individuals being infected and generating multiple variants.
[...]
The existing vaccines protect against all known variants – but not 100%, because no vaccine can. But as a significant portion of the population is only partially vaccinated or unvaccinated alongside an exponential rise in cases, the virus has the opportunity to evolve and for new dangerous variants to take hold.

The vaccines reduce viral load, this is what improves clinical outcomes and reduces - but not completely eliminates - transmission.

If you were thrown off a cliff would you rather have a parachute or not?

 

[Voidmatrix]

I have respect for everyone here, but wonder how much influence is due to a variety of cognitive biases that create echo chambers for what some believe to be true... unfortunately this idea lies mainly with antivaxxer "arguments," which for the most part I find invalid.

I'd rather have a parachute, so I got vaccinated...

One love

 

[Pile of cats]

I've been here long enough to know that there's certain topics that aren't welcome here, this kind of stuff being one of them, again if I'm given the go ahead, I'd be more than happy to share information backing up what I'm saying.

No, I'm not going to name anyone because that'd unfair to those involved and you'd just say that I made it up anyway.

Medical professionals are profiting personally from the roll out of the vaccine, people who do have an adverse reaction are told by the ambulance / their doctor that there's very little chance that their experience ends up reported. It's also currently illegal to put anything relating to the vaccine on a death certificate so you asking this of me is not as easy as you're making it out to be.

The censorship is real, people are having content taken down off social media and being banned for sharing the views of reputable scientists, only real difference between them and the ones who aren't censored is that they're not on pharma pay roll.

Don't worry, the lack of respect is mutual I assure you Bill Cypher

I'm sure glad that companies like Pfizer aren't yet in charge of what goes in my body, I hope it stays that way but it seems people like you would be supportive of such coercion and sadly there's far too many people like yourself in this dying world.

https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/

There's literally endless amounts of information on the crimes of these companies and that's only the ones that've come to surface. When you have someone like Patrick Vallance who had a senior role at GSK go on to become chief scientific advisor, it's not hard to imagine that there's a lot more that gets swept under the carpet as has already happened.



Testing methods are so flawed round the world and only serve to justify continued lockdowns, there isn't much data I've been able to find to suggest that the vaccine is having any effect in preventing transmission: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

Oh and I definitely would compare Covid with being thrown off a cliff. The Guardian is hardly a reliable source of information.

I'm going to stop replying now as I don't want to get banned as there's still aspects of this forum that I love and am grateful for. The blind faith in pharmaceutical companies with a large history of crimes, not so much.

 

[dragonrider]

I've been here long enough to know that there's certain topics that aren't welcome here, this kind of stuff being one of them, again if I'm given the go ahead, I'd be more than happy to share information backing up what I'm saying.

No, I'm not going to name anyone because that'd unfair to those involved and you'd just say that I made it up anyway.

Medical professionals are profiting personally from the roll out of the vaccine, people who do have an adverse reaction are told by the ambulance / their doctor that there's very little chance that their experience ends up reported. It's also currently illegal to put anything relating to the vaccine on a death certificate so you asking this of me is not as easy as you're making it out to be.

The censorship is real, people are having content taken down off social media and being banned for sharing the views of reputable scientists, only real difference between them and the ones who aren't censored is that they're not on pharma pay roll.

Don't worry, the lack of respect is mutual I assure you Bill Cypher

I'm sure glad that companies like Pfizer aren't yet in charge of what goes in my body, I hope it stays that way but it seems people like you would be supportive of such coercion and sadly there's far too many people like yourself in this dying world.

https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/

There's literally endless amounts of information on the crimes of these companies and that's only the ones that've come to surface. When you have someone like Patrick Vallance who had a senior role at GSK go on to become chief scientific advisor, it's not hard to imagine that there's a lot more that gets swept under the carpet as has already happened.



Testing methods are so flawed round the world and only serve to justify continued lockdowns, there isn't much data I've been able to find to suggest that the vaccine is having any effect in preventing transmission: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

Content is being taken down, because misinformation and lies can have a serious impact on public health.

There are statistics available on side-effects of vaccines. These statistics VERY CLEARLY indicate that taking these vaccines is safer than not taking vaccines in terms of risk asessement.

Do you think these statistics are fabricated?

 

[downwardsfromzero]

The Guardian is hardly a reliable source of information.

Do you take issue with the exact clauses I quoted? It's a shame you won't be replying to this thread because I'd really like to know.

Presumably you'd also regard a popular science magazine such as NewScientist as unreliable? What do you regard as a reliable source of information?

"Any body of knowledge is either incomplete or contains errors." - some clever soul.

 

[Voidmatrix]

The Guardian is hardly a reliable source of information.

Do you take issue with the exact clauses I quoted? It's a shame you won't be replying to this thread because I'd really like to know.

Presumably you'd also regard a popular science magazine such as NewScientist as unreliable? What do you regard as a reliable source of information?

"Any body of knowledge is either incomplete or contains errors." - some clever soul.

And why do you find said sources reliable? I'm curious as well.

It was fun while it lasted

One love

 

[Jagube]

"Any body of knowledge is either incomplete or contains errors." - some clever soul.

Sounds like a soft version of Gödel's theorem

 

[Bill Cipher]

Medical professionals are profiting personally from the roll out of the vaccine, people who do have an adverse reaction are told by the ambulance / their doctor that there's very little chance that their experience ends up reported. It's also currently illegal to put anything relating to the vaccine on a death certificate so you asking this of me is not as easy as you're making it out to be.

But see, nothing you’ve said here is even remotely true. None of it. Nada. Can you understand how exhausting is it for anyone anywhere to try and engage with you when you just make up nonsense to bolster baseless arguments?

 

[downwardsfromzero]

And why do you find said sources reliable? I'm curious as well.

I never said that I did. Show me where I did, if you think I'm mistaken. Implication does not count, that's your assumption. I chose to quote two passages because, using my personal judgement, it seemed reasonable to do so. NewScientist can be a useful source of general outlines of what's going on in a variety of fields but, as with any other source, that does not mean that one should blindly accept everything they say.

I just think "(x) is hardly a reliable source of information" is a bit of a facile argument because no source of information is ever fully reliable. Many of us tend to choose to believe information that confirms our personal biases - it's simpler than filtering the entirety of available information on an ongoing basis. And in that respect, I've turned to the Guardian and NewScientist here simply because when I grew up these were the the two main printed media in my home environment. It simplifies my life, and I understand their biases. [Edit: They were also among the earliest relatively mainstream UK publications that spoke out in favour of drug decriminalisation, so that's another reason for my soft spot.]

I'd rather look after and enjoy my garden than spend 29 hours a day 'researching' alternative media on the internet. It can all be gamed and manipulated anyhow.

Any constructive suggestions on what constitutes a 'reliable' source of information will be gratefully received.

 

[Voidmatrix]

My apologies buddy, I (thought) I was adding to your question about reliable sources to Pile of Cats. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. I tend to agree with you on a variety of things

One love

 

[downwardsfromzero]

It's OK VM, I did get where you were coming from. Questions on the reliability of information can be a touchy these days

Maybe you weren't expecting a 'robust' answer? I don't really do philosophy.

 

[Voidmatrix]

It's OK VM, I did get where you were coming from. Questions on the reliability of information can be a touchy these days

Maybe you weren't expecting a 'robust' answer? I don't really do philosophy.

They definitely can be touchy, hence my rapidity in responding because I definitely wasn't questioning or attacking you, but adding to the point you made earlier. I don't personally have an issue with those publications. I just also found the statement "The Guardian is hardly a reliable source of information" to be a cop-out and pointless since there was no indication as to why.

I enjoy 'robust' answers, especially from you, and I think you're better at philosophy than you think :thumb_up:

Confirmation bias seems very prevalent in some individuals' views.

One love

 

[dragonrider]

It's OK VM, I did get where you were coming from. Questions on the reliability of information can be a touchy these days

Maybe you weren't expecting a 'robust' answer? I don't really do philosophy.

You can never realy be sure that a single source is reliable.
Any source can be corrupted.
But the question is whether all the major sources can be corrupted all of the time.

To a great extent, answering this question probably boils down to how you personally see the world you live in.

If you believe the world is fundamentally bad, you might believe that such a large scale conspiracy, where all the mainstream sources, all government officials, all medical proffesionals and all virologists and epidemiologists around the world and many more, are in on it, is entirely possible.

If you are inclined to believe that most of society is essentially good, you are not likely to believe that such a thing could ever be pulled off, realistically.

Does the world make sense to you or not? Is this a good world where bad things occasionally happen, or do bad things define your world entirely?

These are just fundamentally different ways of looking at the world.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Agreed, this also encapsulates epistemic limits.

One love

 

[Nicita]

I thought for a while if I wanted to say something in this thread, because I'm not looking to get into a prolonged forum fight, but I thought I just share a little story.

There once was a little avian virus. When it infected a chicken, it could paralyse or blind it and it was the cause of much headache for the chicken farmers, who had to kill many chickens that they otherwise could have sold.
But one day, some smart chicken doctors came up with a vaccine. When the farmers inoculated their flock, they would not get sick from the little virus any more, but would grow up as healthy as a chicken in modern meat industry would be.
What the vaccine did not do was to stop the little virus from infecting the chickens and spreading though the flock and at that point, the big sister of the little virus, natural selection stepped in.
When a strain of the little virus would become to dangerous before the vaccine was around, it would not get very far, because it would to quickly kill all the chickens it could reach and die with them. But now, the flocks of vaccinated birds became like a gym for the little virus. It could become more virulent and more deadly without killing of his hosts.
And so, little by little, birds that had not been vaccinated encountered a stronger and stronger little virus, so more and more farmers had to vaccinate all of their birds, if they wanted to make any money and more and more selective pressure to more virulence and higher mortality made the little virus into a beast that will kill any chicken and many other birds in encounters, if they were not vaccinated.

Can someone guess the moral of the story?

Much love

 

[Bill Cipher]

Can someone guess the moral of the story?

That all viruses are best left unchecked to kill off their hosts?

Is that really your ideal solution? To kill off the human race in order to eradicate COVID and hand over the planet to chickens?

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Can someone guess the moral of the story?

That all viruses are best left unchecked to kill off their hosts?

Is that really your ideal solution? To kill off the human race in order to eradicate COVID and hand over the planet to chickens?

It might not be too bad of an idea - if we manage to turn off the gas and shut down all the nuclear reactors safely first. Or maybe we need to start training the chickens to operate nuclear reactors already, just in case... But who will inoculate the chickens once all the humans have died off?

Is this what the robot computer god has been planning all along?

The moral of the story that I can actually discern is that factory farming is a horrible idea with generally negative consequences, vaccines or not.

 

[Bill Cipher]

The moral of the story that I can actually discern is that factory farming is a horrible idea with generally negative consequences, vaccines or not.

True dat.