COVID-19 vaccines

Septextura

Well-known member
Not all people come to a conspiracy forum to post their delusions.

I pity the sane ones that come to read conspiracy delusions with intent to 'sort them out'. No vigor and sense of fun in their lives.

Have you put electricians tape over your cellphone front camera yet? You're missing out.
 

J regia

Well-known member
We are being fed lie after lie about this plandemic and the vaccines. Pfizer claims their vaccine is 95% effective. BALONEY! Never has a vaccine been over 50% effective on a virus that I know of.
What is a plandemic?

And is that why the smallpox virus is only found in securely locked laboratories because of demographic planning to eliminate the disease?
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
What is a plandemic?
From Wikipedia:

Plandemic refers to a pair of 2020 conspiracy theory videos produced by Mikki Willis which promote falsehoods and misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. They feature Judy Mikovits, a discredited former researcher who has been described as an anti-vaccine activist despite her denial, and many others on the second video, Plandemic: Indoctornation.

The first video became viral, making it one of the most widespread pieces of COVID-19 misinformation. It was soon removed by multiple platforms. However, Indoctornation did not get as much attention. The videos were criticized by scientists and health professionals for its misleading claims. Willis's response varies, from being silent to being defensive of Plandemic.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
The polio vaccine was 99% effective.
Was it? From what I've read the canning process was horrible until the regulation were put into place. They say the regulations were put into place right around the time of the vaccine.....so, the question is, did the vaccine stop polio or the better canning process?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
You apparently don't know of the most famous vaccine most people today recognize:


So... there've been vaccines MORE EFFECTIVE than what Pfizer is claiming about their product. I can't get you to stop making claims about being told lies (because it's possible you're right), but will you at least stop claiming that those lies include the supposed effectiveness of the ones coming out for this coronavirus?

edit: thanks to @Bonnie for beating me to the punch
When I got my second shot of Pfizer, I was given a package by Pfizer that essentially said: "Were not too sure of anything" We don't know how long the Vaccine will be effective for, we expect that you may still catch the infection, but the symptoms won't be too bad, and we're pretty sure you can still infect others. if you're infected yourself.

Bottom line: THEY DON'T KNOW.

I had no "side effects" from either shot, and I understand that it's the MODERNA vaccine, that produces problems especially after the second shot.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Was it? From what I've read the canning process was horrible until the regulation were put into place. They say the regulations were put into place right around the time of the vaccine.....so, the question is, did the vaccine stop polio or the better canning process?

Nope. Canning regulations are always changing. And remember, polio was not just an American disease. It was (and still is) a world-wide disease. In every case the incidents of polio went down after a nation adopted wide-spread vaccination. You won't it correlating with canning regulations everywhere. But you will find it correlating with vaccinations everywhere. The only reason today that polio has not been totally eradicated like small pox is that there are still some hold-out regions, especially those controlled by militant Islamists, where rumors are circulated that the vaccine is a Western plot to make all Muslim women sterile, and these same militants are murdering medical personnel who are administering the vaccine and the medical groups have had to pull out of those regions for their own safety.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
When I got my second shot of Pfizer, I was given a package by Pfizer that essentially said: "Were not too sure of anything" We don't know how long the Vaccine will be effective for, we expect that you may still catch the infection, but the symptoms won't be too bad, and we're pretty sure you can still infect others. if you're infected yourself.

Bottom line: THEY DON'T KNOW.
Knowing in scientific terms is relative. There are some things they do know, and many things they don't know. Public health officials have enough information to know that it is worth it to administer the vaccine. What they don't know is how long it will last, whether we will need yearly boosters, etc. But it is wrong to say they don't know anything about this virus or the vaccine.


I had no "side effects" from either shot, and I understand that it's the MODERNA vaccine, that produces problems especially after the second shot.
The side effects are the result of your own immune system mounting a response to the spike protein. In so doing, it is "learning" how to combat the real virus if it ever shows up. Since young people have a stronger immune system, they generally have more pronounced side effects from the vaccine. That goes for both Pfizer and Moderna. The older you are the less side effects you can expect from the vaccine. I am 72 and have had only my first shot of Moderna and will get the second shot in about a week. I had no noticeable side effects except maybe some tiredness that lasted about one day. I also expect a slightly larger response from the second dose. My wife is 73 and she got both shots of Pfizer. (We are a mixed marriage, I guess?) She had only a slight headache both times that lasted about one day.
 

York

Active member
No matter how the vaccine works in the end result, it is very difficult for us ordinary people to understand all these technologies, the most important thing is the result. If the vaccine is really effective and does not threaten human health, it is possible and necessary to use such a vaccine.
The trouble with this view is that it relies on someone to say it doesn't threaten human health. The long list of things which weren't felt to be a danger to human health and which turned out to be a danger to human health is too long to mention.

You are left with a punt: do I believe the current claims (by people with undoubted vested interest, which in itself granted, isn't a proof of a lie) that such and such is safe.

If you take the punt you take the punt. If you decide not to take the punt you live with whatever the risk of contracting Covid.

As it happens and assuming the vaccine effective, those not taking the punt can piggy back off the risk-diminishment granted them by all those who do take the punt.

A kind a win-win for the punt-averse.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
The trouble with this view is that it relies on someone to say it doesn't threaten human health.
That is not a major trouble if the "someone" is reliable.


The long list of things which weren't felt to be a danger to human health and which turned out to be a danger to human health is too long to mention.
In using such a list to extrapolate to the risk the new vaccine is mathematically invalid unless it is compared to the even longer list of things that were declared to be safe and were in fact safe. The calculation of probability involves the ratio between those two lists. You can't calculate a ratio without know both the numerator and the denominator.

You are left with a punt: do I believe the current claims (by people with undoubted vested interest, which in itself granted, isn't a proof of a lie) that such and such is safe.
That is not a punt. Punt is making a decision to go with a low risk of loss at the expense of a high risk of larger gain. In this case, to decide not to take the vaccine is to go with one risk of loss over another risk of loss. There is no guaranteed small loss option.


As it happens and assuming the vaccine effective, those not taking the punt can piggy back off the risk-diminishment granted them by all those who do take the punt.
But before that happens there is a transitional period when your decision not to be vaccinated could result in the loss of many more lives, including those close to you, and maybe even you yourself. But the more people that are vaccinated, the greater the evidence that it is safe, to the point that avoiding it for that reason is no longer a rational choice.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
[...] before that happens there is a transitional period when your decision not to be vaccinated could result in the loss of many more lives, including those close to you, and maybe even you yourself. But the more people that are vaccinated, the greater the evidence that it is safe, to the point that avoiding it for that reason is no longer a rational choice.
I don't mean to imply anything about York's politics; at all. However, it's pretty amazing to me that US conservatives used to argue for herd immunity to combat the pandemic, but now that we actually have herd immunity almost in our grasp, they reject the means by which to get there.

EDIT: I should be clear: I believe York is a citizen of the UK, so I should have been a bit more careful to avoid the association of vaccine-skepticism with US conservativism.
 
Last edited:

York

Active member
That is not a major trouble if the "someone" is reliable.

Indeed. Pharma has a bit of a record. Which is not to say they are corrupt in this instance. But.

And you have governmental agencies. But they have a fish to fry - namely mass vaccination.

How ought the average punter, who isn't in a position to dig into the science, approach these glaring issues?
In using such a list to extrapolate to the risk the new vaccine is mathematically invalid unless it is compared to the even longer list of things that were declared to be safe and were in fact safe.

..as understood to date. We're only coming to realise (in the mass realisation context) that plastic is a problem. Or that fossil fuel burning is a problem.

The problem outlined in my first comment up top means this can't be considered neutral unless otherwise shown. There's hardly a day goes by when a corporate is caught with its knickers down.

Nor are we unaware that agencies in which we nominally trust, are co-opted by corporates (which makes absolute sense from a corporate perspective) to align with corporate interests.


The calculation of probability involves the ratio between those two lists. You can't calculate a ratio without know both the numerator and the denominator.

Indeed. We don't know. Other than knowing there is a problem of some or other extent.
That is not a punt. Punt is making a decision to go with a low risk of loss at the expense of a high risk of larger gain.
A punt is a gamble on unknowns. I don't mean punt as in well calculated gamble


In this case, to decide not to take the vaccine is to go with one risk of loss over another risk of loss. There is no guaranteed small loss option.

Indeed. In a scenario of unknowns you decide which is the better punt.

But before that happens there is a transitional period when your decision not to be vaccinated could result in the loss of many more lives, including those close to you, and maybe even you yourself. But the more people that are vaccinated, the greater the evidence that it is safe, to the point that avoiding it for that reason is no longer a rational choice.

Yes but we would have to overcome the problems outlined. Who do you trust given trust an issue.

I'm not that convinced by the 'do it for others' argument. Others, if concerned about themselves can largely take action to look after themselves. This is first and foremost a private decision.

Would you take one for the team if you felt you were running a weighted-against-you risk? Hardly. The question always comes down to the sense of individual risk. Or a sense of 'I don't know what the risk is'

I've had Covid so its more an abstract discussion at the moment
 

Hark

Well-known member
it’s part of a satanic ritual both covid and the vaccine. I will not wear the face diaper either. So now I’ve spent almost a year in my small apartment and have gone no place.
Psalm 91:9 Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; 10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. 11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

I have worn the mask to allay the fears of others, which is done out of Christ's love towards others that are insecure in public, but Jesus is with me and I can go anywhere. I have not taken the vaccine nor am I willing to do so.

If I become a target to be made sick, so be it, but I know where I am going when I die.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Psalm 91:9 Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; 10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. 11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

I have worn the mask to allay the fears of others, which is done out of Christ's love towards others that are insecure in public, but Jesus is with me and I can go anywhere. I have not taken the vaccine nor am I willing to do so.

If I become a target to be made sick, so be it, but I know where I am going when I die.
As an atheist supporter of mask-wearing and other social behaviors to combat the pandemic, I have to say this:

As long as you're willing to demonstrate what other people think of as concern for your fellow citizens (ie. wearing a mask in public), then I guess I can't "complain" about you not wanting to take the vaccine. I wish that you would, but besides the fact that this isn't my decision to make, at least you're willing to follow public health guidelines in regards to interacting with others.
 

York

Active member
I would add.

I was subject to a dismissal for Gross Misconduct from a corporate. It was interesting to see how it all worked - ultimately there was a need to clear out senior management as corporate needed to be seen to take an action to resolve a problem that had nothing much to do with local management. This is how they went about it.

They had the system down pat, knew the workings of labour law and how to work it to their advantage. Weren't fun but it was very instructive.

I read Andrew Wakefield's account of the whole MMR thing (which is not to say I paint him as saint). All the same tricks and spin and twisting and manipulation that I had undergone, he had undergone.

My Christian understanding: the ultimately and utterly corrupt nature of mankind: there is nothing to which man will not stoop.

Which is not to say corporate is occupied by Satan's legions in disguise. Much more workers in Nazi Germany's rail system doing their jobs.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Indeed. Pharma has a bit of a record.
A relatively good record, considering the good they have done.


And you have governmental agencies. But they have a fish to fry - namely mass vaccination.
There is no reason to think that they are sacrificing safety of the people they serve.

How ought the average punter, who isn't in a position to dig into the science, approach these glaring issues?
Trust the people who have had the longest reputation for being right.


..as understood to date. We're only coming to realise (in the mass realisation context) that plastic is a problem. Or that fossil fuel burning is a problem.
..as the scientists are telling us. So...?

The problem outlined in my first comment up top means this can't be considered neutral unless otherwise shown. There's hardly a day goes by when a corporate is caught with its knickers down.
It is not time for cherry-picking. The cherry blossom have only now come into bloom in Japan.


Nor are we unaware that agencies in which we nominally trust, are co-opted by corporates (which makes absolute sense from a corporate perspective) to align with corporate interests.
More cherry-picking.

Indeed. We don't know. Other than knowing there is a problem of some or other extent.
Which problem do you mean? The pandemic? Yes, it's a problem alright.


Yes but we would have to overcome the problems outlined.
Which problems have you outlined?


I'm not that convinced by the 'do it for others' argument. Others, if concerned about themselves can largely take action to look after themselves. This is first and foremost a private decision.
No, it is a social decision - for the same reason that you are not allowed to smoke in a restaurant in most states.

Would you take one for the team if you felt you were running a weighted-against-you risk? Hardly.
But the vaccine is not that kind of risk.

I've had Covid so its more an abstract discussion at the moment
Ah, the arrogance of the young! (Most people are young to me. I'm 72.)
 

Hark

Well-known member
As an atheist supporter of mask-wearing and other social behaviors to combat the pandemic, I have to say this:

As long as you're willing to demonstrate what other people think of as concern for your fellow citizens (ie. wearing a mask in public), then I guess I can't "complain" about you not wanting to take the vaccine. I wish that you would, but besides the fact that this isn't my decision to make, at least you're willing to follow public health guidelines in regards to interacting with others.
I should clarify that I do not wear a mask when I go out for a walk or a jog in my neighborhood. Not everyone wears a mask when they do, but tend to obey the 6 foot rule mostly, but not always.

I believe when it comes to public places where people have to go.. then yeah.. to allay their fears. Hard to avoid people even by the 6 foot rule in stores and places like that no matter how well the store tries to prevent that, and so that is where the mask comes in. I have seen some people not wear mask in stores from earlier times and looking at me as if I am going to cause them grief, which I did not. If maintaining distance is key, then any argument to that effect would be opposing what those that wish to achieve by social distancing. Best to keep on moving.

Sometimes, fear or even the lack thereof has to be respected by others. No need to engage those detrimental to that effect.
 
Top