Covid-19 vaccine

[tabzer]

I've said numerous times that if you have a real medical reason for not getting vaccinated, you shouldn't get vaccinated. That would be something tot talk to your doctor about. However, if that's not the case, then your risks are significantly higher not getting vaccinated vs. getting vaccinated, even if you're young/healthy and less likely to experience serious illness as a result of COVID-19. That was my point, and it was clear. I don't have to be a doctor to acknowledge the scientific facts.

I'm not the one who needs to "GTFO."

Please don't mistake my response to you as solicitation. I'm fine with my current medical advocacy. I don't care about how you rationalize it. You aren't in a position, moral or legal, to comment on my undisclosed medical situation.

 

[Lacius]

Please don't mistake my response to you as solicitation. I'm fine with my current medical advocacy. I don't care about how you rationalize it. You aren't in a position, moral or legal, to comment on my undisclosed medical situation.

I am in the position to comment on the idiotic, anti-vax, and anti-science bullshit you've slung all over this thread, regardless of how desperately you want to reframe things.

 

[tabzer]

I am in the position to comment on the idiotic, anti-vax, and anti-science bullshit you've slung all over this thread, regardless of how desperately you want to reframe things.

You are in the position to do anything you can, and characterize it however you want. Telling me that my decision to not get vaccinated is "anti-science" is ignorant, immoral, and unwarranted. I've already commented on how your application of "the science" is inconsistent, and it looks awfully familiar to those who use conflicting religious claims as a justification for their shameful actions. If you want to address that instead of attacking the strawman, be my guest. The fact is, multiple interpretations of a data set can exist. Calling me anti-science because I don't have the same confidence in the vaccine as you is not "doing or preserving" science. It's just being subversive, which in itself, is anti-science. I would say that it is ironic, but you have a knack for being pretentious.

If you believed in half the stuff you say about yourself, you'd be doing a lot more shutting up and listening instead.

 

[Lacius]

You are in the position to do anything you can, and characterize it however you want. Telling me that my decision to not get vaccinated is "anti-science" is ignorant, immoral, and unwarranted.

There are specific statements you've said about vaccines, COVID-19, their relative risks, etc., and objectively, those statements either comport with the science or they don't. Those are the things I've said are anti-science, and I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

If I'm coming off as pretentious, it's because I'm a skeptic who accepts science, and you're behaving like an idiot for rejecting science. Also, whether or not I'm coming off as pretentious, or even if I am pretentious, is irrelevant to whether or not you're behaving like an anti-science asshole.

 

[tabzer]

There are specific statements you've said about vaccines, COVID-19, their relative risks, etc., and objectively, those statements either comport with the science or they don't. Those are the things I've said are anti-science, and I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

If I'm coming off as pretentious, it's because I'm a skeptic who accepts science, and you're behaving like an idiot for rejecting science. Also, whether or not I'm coming off as pretentious, or even if I am pretentious, is irrelevant to whether or not you're behaving like an anti-science asshole.

You are saying the things that I've said either comport with the science or they don't, and you refer to them as anti-science.

Okay.

Let's talk about those specific statements that either comport with the science or don't.

"Safe and effective" isn't the same as "Safe and effective*,**,***".

*yesterday more than today
**relative to an irrational variableof possibilities
***By applying "correlation is not causation" and waivers to skirt culpability

 

[Lacius]

You are saying the things that I've said either comport with the science or they don't, and you refer to them as anti-science.

Okay.

Let's talk about those specific statements that either comport with the science or don't.

"Safe and effective" isn't the same as "Safe and effective*,**,***".

*yesterday more than today
**relative to an irrational variableof possibilities
***By applying "correlation is not causation" and waivers to skirt culpability

Listen carefully, and you might learn something. When I say the vaccines are "safe and effective," I mean the following:

• There is no significant risk of serious side effects. There's no evidence for a significant risk of serious side effects, and after hundreds of millions of vaccinations, we haven't seen any increase in any medical condition that hasn't already been associated with something else like COVID-19.
• The vaccines are highly effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19.
• The vaccines are highly effective at reducing the need for hospitalization due to COVID-19.
• The vaccines are highly effective at reducing the odds of death by COVID-19.

These are scientific facts, and you're a fool for rejecting them. It's really as simple as that.

 

[The Catboy]

The virus isn't completely natural. The virus the went on the loose was genetically modified in the nearby lab (possibly for experiments for biological warfare). Also the Chinese government did nothing to contain the outbreak when it was discovered. They also bribed the W.H.O. to downplay the severity of the virus as they are against anything that makes them look bad. I don't trust anything their government says. I do know that COVID-19 was in the US back in 2019 before the doctors here knew what it was as I know somebody who his doctors are pretty sure had COVID in Dec 2019 despite no one knowing about it in the US until 2020. His COVID antibodies were off the chart in late 2020 and the only time he was seriously ill was in Dec 2019 when the doctors thought he had double pneumonia.

I don't trust anything the media says as they lie all the time to boost ratings and to get people riled up.

I wish people would stop calling this a vaccine. Just like Flu shot (also not a vaccine), it only tries to help boost immunity and cannot prevent you from getting it. I know plenty of people that still got COVID despite getting the jabs.

Also people have died after getting the COVID shot so not everybody should get it, especially if they have underlying heath issues.

Before people starting saying I'm the problem with COVID still being around I did get my 3 shots last year along with the Flu shot. I can understand why some people are against get the shots since we don't have the whole picture and too many people have had bad reactions getting them.

Although you gave an actually thought-out reply, I do have to ask where I could read more about the first place. Doing so quick research into it, there is evidence of a lab leak but no evidence of the virus is genetically modified. There is also evidence of government downplay, that's one of the early criticisms that is often cited when talking about how poorly handled Covid was. It's quite possible for there to have been early victims to Covid, my older sibling had come back positive for Covid antibodies back in March of last year.
I am rather confused as to why you would say it's not a vaccine as it seems to meet the criteria needed to be a vaccine.
There have been 9 reported deaths linked to the J&J vaccine

CDC has also identified nine deaths that have been caused by or were directly attributed to TTS following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. Women ages 30-49 years, especially, should be aware of the increased risk of this rare adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen.

Source: CDC
It's worth noting that I am aware of health complications as a result of preexisting medical conduction. I am not a doctor and I always try to include the exception for those who can't be vaccinated or require additional verification before they can. I have an immune disorder and had to ask my doctor which vaccine was recommended, just to be safe. I can not stress enough that people should talk to their doctor before getting vaccinated.

I am glad you are taking care of your health and will point to the above statement on people's worries. My issue isn't people who can't get vaccinated, it's the people who spread conspiracies around vaccines and discourage others from getting vaccinated.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm not making any claims about non-presented data. Interpretation also does not require "a source", so if you disagree with my interpretation, demanding a source is not a rebuttal. However, as already established, when you are provided a source for something that falls outside of your accepted data set, you say that it's not worth your time and call names. It is pointless to entertain you as being "scientific" when you and your peers easily resort to strawmen and ad hominem fallacies to suppress conversation. At that point, you reduce yourself to just a noisy mob.

If you want to make this about potential election fraud, I do not have confidence in America's election process. It's not an unreasonable position considering the list of presidents you've had and the history of foul-play alleged by both sides. Are both sides are liars or both sides telling the truth. Either way, you have a system operating on fraud. If you dispute that both sides have dipped into these shenanigans, then I'm really not patient enough to have this conversation.

If you can't argue based on points being made as opposed to appeals to authority, then you are not someone worth answering to.

I interpret the current situation as evidence that vaccines have not been effective. I interpret the CDC acknowledging risks in their vaccines to undermine the overzealous claim of safety. I'm not even touching data sets that you consider "fringe" (even like VEARS--despite how ridiculous you'd have to be to protest it).

I'm referring to data that isn't disputed.

Asking people to get vaccinated is putting the value of your life over theirs.

Also, it goes beyond that now.

Vaccinating children for Covid is something that some would think is reasonable. I think that's sick.

You've made countless claims and when pressed you've only deflected the requests for verification of your claims. The only times you've provided "sources" were either to conspiracy sites or sources that either misquoted or omitted details. Most of the time you act like you've provided a source and even argued as if you have.
You claimed there was mass election fraud and then credited "God" or "faith." The reason I bring this up is that you have a very long history of making claims and then arguing with absolute nonsense when pressed on your claims.
That's your interpretation but fortunately, reality doesn't line up with your interpretation.
What data are you actually referring to though? You are saying you are "referring to data" but you haven't posted any of that data, you are literally making a claim without showing what you are referring to.
I literally don't care if you feel that way about vaccines or the request for others to be vaccinated.

 

[tabzer]

You claimed there was mass election fraud and then credited "God" or "faith."

Lol. I need a source for this.

There is no significant risk of serious side effects. There's no evidence for a significant risk of serious side effects, and after hundreds of millions of vaccinations, we haven't seen any increase in any medical condition that hasn't already been associated with something else like COVID-19.

Loaded.

The vaccines are highly effective at reducing the spread of COVID-19.

Reducing? Delaying or mutating?


The other two points you get maybes on.

 

[Lacius]

Loaded.

You're wrong.

Reducing? Delaying or mutating?

Reducing.

The other two points you get maybes on.

They're verifiable scientific facts, you moron.

 

[tabzer]

I have no way of verifying your capacity to qualify evidence or that your faith in your institutions is merited, so I remain skeptical.

 

[Chary]

Captains Log, Day 8,296: my parents still think I am anti vax along with them. They don't suspect a thing.

Joking aside, my father still hasn't been cleared to get the vaccine yet. I worry for him, since he's incredibly high risk. Can't wait for a covert op pharmacy run when his doctor says he can get his first shot.

 

[sley]

I have no way of verifying your capacity to qualify evidence or that your faith in your institutions is merited, so I remain skeptical.

You guys have been discussing for 2 weeks now, and after this reply i'm pretty sure that this isn't going anywhere meaningful.
How can a simple question like "Is the vaccine safe" be this blown out of proportion.

 

[NewGBAXL]

because people make a big deal about other people's decisions
if you don't think it works, don't criticize people who do
if you think it works, act like it. stop worrying that anti-vaxxers will pass it to you

You guys have been discussing for 2 weeks now, and after this reply i'm pretty sure that this isn't going anywhere meaningful.
How can a simple question like "Is the vaccine safe" be this blown out of proportion.

 

[Lacius]

You guys have been discussing for 2 weeks now, and after this reply i'm pretty sure that this isn't going anywhere meaningful.
How can a simple question like "Is the vaccine safe" be this blown out of proportion.

I've made it clear that I don't expect anyone will be able to say anything that will change @tabzer's mind. He overtly doesn't care about the science or the facts, and that means all of his posts are in bad-faith (not to mention foolish).

My replies to his posts are for other people.

I have no way of verifying your capacity to qualify evidence or that your faith in your institutions is merited, so I remain skeptical.

If you're going to arbitrarily reject scientific evidence you don't like, I guess that means you don't need to eat healthy or exercise either. Eat up, little piggy.

because people make a big deal about other people's decisions
if you don't think it works, don't criticize people who do
if you think it works, act like it. stop worrying that anti-vaxxers will pass it to you

Irresponsibly spreading vaccine misinformation demonstrably leads to an increased spread of disease and death, not to mention the increased likelihood that new variants will emerge.

The vaccines also aren't 100% effective. The more the virus is allowed to spread, the more likely it is those who are vaccinated will contract the disease despite doing everything right.

 

[The Catboy]

You guys have been discussing for 2 weeks now, and after this reply i'm pretty sure that this isn't going anywhere meaningful.
How can a simple question like "Is the vaccine safe" be this blown out of proportion.

It's more like 2 years with that guy. He has a long history of posting conspiracies, getting asked for sources, and dragging things out for literally hundreds of pages and across multiple threads. The only reason most of us reply is to make sure his conspiracy nonsense is kept in check. There's also hope that people on the fence will see posts like his and realize how irrational his beliefs really are. Hopefully start asking, "why does someone need to drag out a thread for this long without posting a single link?" then realize that the answer is pretty simple, his posts have no sources, no evidence, and the movements he represents are just as equally vapid.

 

[tabzer]

If you're going to arbitrarily reject scientific evidence you don't like

I'm not arbitrarily rejecting scientific evidence that I don't like. I question the totality of the data presented and the meaning behind the disparity in consensus. Statements made, intended to be interpreted as absolute, while riddled with qualifiers. Attempts to shutdown dissent instead of prying into the meaning behind leaks. Silencing doctors because they disagree. Some of you people shout "anti-science" as the 20th century's version of "blasphemy!" It's not like America prioritizes science over corporate interest. Corporations and government funding fund most scientific studies. What happens when they are in bed with each other? It's not a theory that government actors are lobbied by pharmaceutical giants. I find that rejecting VEARS data is an example of rejecting evidence because you don't like the implication.

Questioning your methods and doubting integrity based on patterns of institutional failure and corporate monopolization is not "anti-science".

 

[RocaBOT]

You say you doubt everything, yet you have very strong opinions about "facts" and claims you have no data to back. Like, come on, you can't say that you're doing science when you reject everything that the method does, including having at the very least a small amount of faith in the data, especially when it comes from many independent sources.

And you've been diverting the subject times and times again. Whenever we ask for data or sources backing your claims, you divert the discussion to some random nonsense. Be it government conspiracies (which may exist, but it's not the fucking subject for god's sake), religion or whatever else fancies your heart at the time. It's not serious. It's not even making any sense.
You even twist what is being said. When Lacius says your claims are wrong, you twist it into saying he said your decisions are wrong. But he did not say your decision is wrong. You do you, if you cannot get vaccinated, or if you decide not to for whatever reason, we do not care. But we do care that you are spreading lies and such about the vaccines here without anything to back your words. It's people like you and words like yours that get people who are vulnerable and in lack of trust for healthcare to put themselves in danger by not getting vaccinated, and those words are indirectly responsible for the deaths of some of those people.

 

[tabzer]

You say you doubt everything, yet you have very strong opinions about "facts" and claims you have no data to back. Like, come on, you can't say that you're doing science when you reject everything that the method does, including having at the very least a small amount of faith in the data, especially when it comes from many independent sources.

And you've been diverting the subject times and times again. Whenever we ask for data or sources backing your claims, you divert the discussion to some random nonsense. Be it government conspiracies (which may exist, but it's not the fucking subject for god's sake), religion or whatever else fancies your heart at the time. It's not serious. It's not even making any sense.
You even twist what is being said. When Lacius says your claims are wrong, you twist it into saying he said your decisions are wrong. But he did not say your decision is wrong. You do you, if you cannot get vaccinated, or if you decide not to for whatever reason, we do not care. But we do care that you are spreading lies and such about the vaccines here without anything to back your words. It's people like you and words like yours that get people who are vulnerable and in lack of trust for healthcare to put themselves in danger by not getting vaccinated, and those words are indirectly responsible for the deaths of some of those people.

I don't doubt everything and I don't say that I do. Whenever thecatboy asks for a source it's to deflect from thinking critically about something. AFAIK, it's not about data sets that have been rejected by anyone here, just the ways it's interpreted to give the benefit of the doubt to one party over another. That person asks for a source in response to written out point, acknowledging nothing about what is there. It's disingenuous and entitled. If they asked about a source about something specific, then that's fine. If they are asking for a source because they are not sure if it is okay to think like I am thinking, then they can be ignored.

I don't know what you mean about Lacius. Do you have an example? Claiming someone is anti-science for not getting vaccinated is out of touch. Claiming someone is increasing their odds of dying by not getting vaccinated is offensive to reason.

I appreciate your attempt to characterize me because it seems like you are trying to get to know me, but it's a little disgraceful--like trying to get to know a new house by bumping around in complete darkness. Except you can see, so I don't know why you are still bumping around. At that point it's just patronizing.

I haven't lied to you or anyone else. Nobody should be convinced by anything I said, or what Lacius says to do something (or not do something). Nobody from here is going to be there to hold their hand when they have to deal the consequences of their actions.

 

[Lacius]

I'm not arbitrarily rejecting scientific evidence that I don't like.

Yeah you are.

I question the totality of the data presented and the meaning behind the disparity in consensus.

There's an overwhelming consensus in the scientific and medical communities. Fake news. Try again.

Statements made, intended to be interpreted as absolute, while riddled with qualifiers.

Welcome to science. Sorry the world is more nuanced and complicated than you'd like.

Attempts to shutdown dissent

Feel free to question anything and everything, but if you're just making up unsubstantiated conspiratorial garbage, then that's all that is, and it's irresponsible.

Silencing doctors because they disagree.

If a doctor irresponsibly says something antithetical to medical science, something that can cause very real harm, they shouldn't be listened to, and they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.

Some of you people shout "anti-science" as the 20th century's version of "blasphemy!"

The difference is we should care about science, not whether or not we've offended some imaginary deity in the sky.

It's not like America prioritizes science over corporate interest.

It should prioritize science, and regardless, it isn't like both can't exist at the same time. The science is clear and good about vaccines in the same way it's clear and good about computer technology. That doesn't mean nobody is going to try to profit off it.

Corporations and government funding fund most scientific studies.

And sometimes they don't.

What happens when they are in bed with each other?

If your answer is something nefarious in this or any other situation, you have to defend that. What motive would the government even have for helping to put out a vaccine that doesn't work? If the vaccine didn't work, we'd have a stifled economy. The government also spends money on things that are in the public interest. What's the motive for pharmaceutical companies selling a vaccine that doesn't work? If it doesn't work, they make significantly less money, and their reputation gets flushed down the toilet.

Even if you could ascribe motives, you'd also need to demonstrate this conspiracy theory. Until then, that's all it is, and I haven't even addressed the independent science corroborating vaccine safety and efficacy or the fact that it would have to be a massively global conspiracy given all of the independent science institutions and governments that would have to be in on it.

You might as well be trying to argue the conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen or likely stolen from Trump (oh wait).

What happens when they are in bed with each other? It's not a theory that government actors are lobbied by pharmaceutical giants.

Who specifically are the government actors? Are they elected or unelected? What specifically did they do? Do you have evidence?

You don't appear to have thought out your own conspiracy theory, and even if you had, baseless conspiracy theories are not a reasonable justification for rejection well-established scientific evidence.

I find that rejecting VEARS data is an example of rejecting evidence because you don't like the implication.

Well, it would be moronic to think this, since the VEARS data isn't "rejected" outright; it's investigated before being rejected. We've discovered vaccine side effects from VEARS data in the past, and it's a very useful tool. The problem with VEARS is anyone can report anything, and correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. It's not great just on its own.

The issue that you seem to have is that you don't realize the VEARS data involving whatever fake side effects you believe exist or are likely to exist was investigated, and they don't actually exist. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," and you need more than anecdotes of alleged correlation to have anything meaningful.

Listen up, because I think you're going to learn something with this analogy. Let's pretend I ate an oatmeal cookie and then suffered a brain aneurysm. If that got reported to the Cookie Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), it would then be investigated. If the data showed that the proportion of people eating oatmeal cookies and then suffering brain aneurysms matches the proportion of people who didn't eat oatmeal cookies but suffered brain aneurysms, and the proportion of brain aneurysms is undercharged since the recent (and very public) release of oatmeal cookies, the claim that oatmeal cookies causes brain aneurysms can and should be rejected.

You're basically saying right now that oatmeal cookies cause, or are likely to cause, brain aneurysms. The VAERS anecdotes that didn't pan out were rejected because they were unsupported by scientific evidence, not because people "didn't like what it was saying." There are plenty of true things about COVID-19 or even the vaccines that we don't like, but we haven't rejected them because we don't like them.

Questioning your methods... is not "anti-science".

It is when those methods are called "the scientific method."