The Coronavirus Thread

[Tero]

[Tero]

Clapton turns antivaxxer after getting two AZ shots.

[Brian Peacock]

Did the shots make him feel unwell and then he tested positive or something?

[L'Emmerdeur]

He had a marked and prolonged (two weeks, he says) reaction to the jabs, which appear to have aggravated his peripheral neuropathy. Therefore the 'vaccine is safe' message is 'propaganda.' I know a person who has had peripheral neuropathy for decades, and who had no notable reaction (other than the expected slight fever etc.) to the same vaccine.

Article

[NineBerry]

"The vaccine is safe" doesn't mean it can't do any harm. It only means that cases where it does harm are very rare. Find me a medical treatment that works and has not at least very rare side-effects.

Because vaccines are not used as treatment but as prophylaxis, the requirements of how rare the number of severe side-effects must be is very high. But most side-effects caused by vaccines would be caused by the actual illness with a much higher probability and much worse.

[Cunt]

I think the distinction Weinstein has been making between risk and harm, has important considerations. I also think that people aren't as careful about that distinction as they ought to be.

The way he puts it, there is no harm in playing Russian Roulette (unless you have a live bullet) but there IS risk.

I never thought the vaccines were safe, so it didn't surprise me when I began hearing about damaging side effects.

[Hermit]

I think the distinction Weinstein has been making between risk and harm, has important considerations. I also think that people aren't as careful about that distinction as they ought to be.

The way he puts it, there is no harm in playing Russian Roulette (unless you have a live bullet) but there IS risk.

I never thought the vaccines were safe, so it didn't surprise me when I began hearing about damaging side effects.

It is important to compare the harm done by vaccination with the harm done by the lack of it. No vaccine is 100% safe, but historically speaking, the net result of vaccines is overwhelmingly positive. Here are three examples:



Interestingly, the recent uptick in the case of measles is due to an increased reluctance by parents to have their children vaccinated since the fraudulent "study" by doctor Andrew Wakefield.

Also worth mentioning is that improved sanitation has greatly reduced the incidence of many infectuous diseases well before vaccines were introduced. Just goes to show that health is a multifactorial issue.

[Brian Peacock]

He had a marked and prolonged (two weeks, he says) reaction to the jabs, which appear to have aggravated his peripheral neuropathy. Therefore the 'vaccine is safe' message is 'propaganda.' I know a person who has had peripheral neuropathy for decades, and who had no notable reaction (other than the expected slight fever etc.) to the same vaccine.

Article

Yeah, smoking like a fish and drinking ng like a chimney will prone you to that kind of thing - peripheral neuropathy, Raynaud's, etc. Sounds like he's being a bit precious.

[Cunt]

Interestingly, the recent uptick in the case of measles is due to an increased reluctance by parents to have their children vaccinated since the fraudulent "study" by doctor Andrew Wakefield.

Also worth mentioning is that improved sanitation has greatly reduced the incidence of many infectuous diseases well before vaccines were introduced. Just goes to show that health is a multifactorial issue.

That isn't the only 'vaccine hesitancy', but it IS pretty awful.

Weinstein (and Heying?) have been vaccine resistant since this new set came on the market. I listened to their concerns, and decided that they didn't change any of my decisions. I was glad to hear their criticisms and concerns, though.

It isn't usually expressed well, so having some 'vaccine-positive' folks (they have both had MANY, and think well of them) express real concerns, absent the vigorous media spin, was a nice change.

I still wouldn't change my mind about it, of course. (I trust Kandola, mainly) but I do take into consideration what their concerns are.

Particularly around the increased risk to young people. Simply put, they have two increased concerns. First, they are still developing, which makes them more susceptible to some side-effects. Second, they have (presumably) a lot longer for long-term effects to develop.

Again, hasn't changed my mind, since I'm LONG past the key developmental stage, but worth considering.

[Sean Hayden]

Sounds like he's being a bit precious.

That was the impression that I got, but I didn't know how to say it without being a cunt.

[Brian Peacock]

Sounds like he's being a bit precious.

That was the impression that I got, but I didn't know how to say it without being a cunt.

I can be a cunt for both of us.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The way he puts it, there is no harm in playing Russian Roulette (unless you have a live bullet) but there IS risk.

I think this was garbled. More accurately, no harm in playing Russian roulette unless the live bullet ends up in the firing position. Lacking a live bullet it's just idiotic posing as opposed to random suicide--no risk to speak of. As presented the metaphor looks like bullshit. I'm willing to credit the source as giving a coherent metaphor despite that.

Let's examine the issue of 'harm vs. risk':

Out of well over a billion of doses of COVID-19 vaccine worldwide, there have been practically no deaths legitimately attributable to reactions to the vaccine--the risk is minimal, as is the harm. Out of the 164+ million cases of COVID-19, 3.4 million deaths legitimately attributable to COVID-19 demonstrate an appreciable risk and significant harm. Finagle the numbers to your heart's content, the 'harm vs. risk' calculation of vaccination compared to that of possible infection won't change much.

[Cunt]

Yeah, they didn't change my mind about these vaccines.

They do make some excellent points about it though, and have discussions that are worth hearing.

Unlike your incoherent misunderstanding of my take on it.

You wouldn't find much that they talk about in conflict with your understanding of the world, I suspect. They are pretty interesting, but not very contraversial.

Except maybe for their support of the 'lab leak hypothesis'. Well, at least for their uniwllingness to dismiss that hypothesis.

So if you wanted a more interesting spot, where you might disagree with them, you could check what they've said about that.

I haven't found much to disagree with. To me, it still looks to early to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis (which might be a different position than yours)

[JimC]

The lab leak hypothesis remains as a possibility, sure, although most scientists involved think that the highest probability is still zoonotic transmission.

[Joe]

So non-scientist question here. If the zoonotic transmission hypothesis is considered most probable, isn't that where the priority should be put in terms of time and personnel?