Have you been vaccinated?

[Red88_Tiger]

I’m eligible to go on list but I live rural and have limited contact with people so happy to wait as there is probably others that need it more

 

[Spacecub]

We don't need it up here in taree, as long as you all stay in sydney

 

[dazza65]

Actually even one puff of a cigarette can cause health issues to the body so that rules out that comparison, so the point still stands…however I respect your opinion to be vaccinated straight away, I just can’t in good faith do the same…yet! Given some time and once full effects of the vaccine is shown to be safe my tune will change, as of now with the current climate in the political world, I’ll be staying clear of anything the government tries to force on us. Stay woke my g…trust no one.

I can only say it one more time - the vaccine has been provide to be safe, already. It's already been proven to be safe. Safe it has proven to be.

The FDA (US), TGA (AU), EMA (EU), MFDS (Korea), PMDA (Japan)... all the world's drug regulatory agencies independently assess medications for approval, so you have multiple expert bodies assessing safety and efficacy data for local use.

The vaccines have already gone into the arms of hundreds of millions, and eventually it will be billions of people. You will see safety data very easily with that level of administration. It would be very obvious if there are serious safety concerns with that weight of data.

My other question is, assuming you are a layperson for medical / drug development - what do you believe is "adequate time" to assess safety of a vaccine? 3 months? 6 months? 18 months? 5 years? I am going to guess you don't actually have a clue and have never before assessed safety data for a drug.

Your last comment about politics - you reckon, what, all the governments of the world are colluding to get their people to vaccinate, and you are suspicious? To what end? What is the purpose of getting everyone vaccinated, if not to protect their safety? Every government on Earth encouraging their countrymen and women to get the shot. Aren't most conspiracies supposed to be done clandestine, not as a consensus, not out in the open?

I’d also like to see the data on “one puff of a cigarette can cause health problems”…….that’s a ticking time bomb …

 

[jirskyr]

Not how it works mate.
Vaccination does 3 things:
(1) reduces your chance of getting COVID
(2) reduces your chance of getting seriously ill from COVID
(3) reduces the chance you pass COVID onto someone else
So maybe you can roll the dice yourself and there’s good odds you’d be OK. However the odds aren’t THAT good

I disagree with your statement “However the odds aren’t THAT good´.

The issue is: how much does vaccination reduces one’s risk of Covid and, more importantly, of dying of Covid.

According to the Pfizer vaccine study, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) for catching Covid was 0.84%. This was because only 0.88% of the control group actually caught Covid.

With regard to how much vaccination would reduce one’s risk of dying of Covid, I looked at the Australian Government’s own data for information. See:

covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

Their worst-case scenario assumes 3,544 infections per 100,000 people over a 16 week period. Thus, a risk of catching Covid of 3.5% in a bad outbreak.

They assume vaccination (AZ) reduces risk of serious disease or death by 80%.

I used this information to discuss risk with one of my daughters, who is in her mid-30s.

For her age group (30-39) the Government assumes that if all 100,000 were vaccinated, 3 deaths would be prevented. Thus, if no one were vaccinated in that group then 3.75 people would die (3 is 80% of 3.75) and 0.75 would die in the vaccinated group (3.75 – 3).

0.75 deaths per 100,000 is an absolute risk of 0.00075%. While 3.75 deaths per 100,000 is an absolute risk of 0.00375%. This gives an ARR of 0.003% (0.000375% - 0.00075%).

So, vaccination for my daughter would reduce her risk of dying of Covid by 0.003%. Or, put another way, would reduce her risk of dying by 1 chance in 33,333.

Everybody has to make their own personal decision based on their assessment of risk, and that will depend on many factors, the most important of which is underlying health.

Vaccination will make sense for many people, for others, not so much.

I think you have misinterpreted the data.

Take the "high exposure risk" scenario. They are taking a real-observed rate of 3,544 COVID cases per 100,000 population, over 16 weeks, as observed in Europe in Jan/21. And their estimate is, for every 100K vaccinations, it would prevent 3 deaths in that scenario. 3 deaths of 3,544 cases across 16 weeks. So its 3/3,544 death rate (0.08%) not 3/100K that you quoted. The other ~96.5K didn't get COVID, they can't die from it and nothing exists to be prevented.

0.08% is still low, granted. But remove the 16-week periodicity - what happens if COVID becomes endemic over many years, and 250K 30-39 year olds develop COVID? That same death rate would see 20 deaths.

Extrapolate further - there are approx 3.2 million Aussies aged 30-39. 0.08% death rate if everyone eventually gets exposed to COVID = 2,560 deaths.

You don't really need to dig into the data that hard. They already tell you - they estimate 80% risk reduction of serious disease or death, if you get COVID. So ignore deaths for a minute - who wants serious disease? What about long-term implications for a serious health setback at that age, the so-called "long COVID"?

And you have to obviously consider your all-life chance of getting COVID. Like I said, they may have seen 3.5K cases per 100K over 16 weeks, but it may be that ultimately everyone gets it, or a lot of people get it. 16 weeks is nothing if COVID hangs around.

Look at the US: 4.47 million cases of COVID to date, accounting for 16.4% of the total case load in the US. Of those 6,142 have died (0.13%). 6 thousand new-parent-age people died in 1.5 years due to a respiratory infection. Terrible, and that's one of the lower risk age groups.

Then beside all of that, vaccination isn't just about personal 1-1 risk, it's about contribution to reduction of community risk. It's not just about your daughter's own chance of fighting off COVID, it's the chance that she doesn't also infect someone else. Vaccination is a herd-numbers game - your risk of getting ill drops significantly if most people are vaccinated, but increases significantly if less people are vaccinated. Even if you are vaccinated, you don't stay permanently immune to COVID; instead you are rolling the dice every time you get exposed to someone who has it.

For example, small pox would still kill a lot of people, especially kids, if it were around. It's not just the personal effectiveness of the vaccination case-by-case, it was the overall community effect of high vaccination driving down the total community case load. Obviously you can't die from smallpox if you never get exposed to it.

Furthermore if COVID remains heavily present in the community, the chances of natural mutation increase, and there may be a variant that is much more destructive. Get everyone vaccinated now and the chances of that variation are dramatically reduced.

It's a no-brainer. Honestly, if you think about it too hard you are wasting mental energy. Low risk of side effects, upswing in every other aspect you can think about.

 

[jirskyr]

Interestingly, there were 7,235 persons who had been fully vaccinated (two doses) that were infected and, of these, 50 died. While 53,822 unvaccinated persons were infected and 44 died.
There would be good explanations for the large difference in mortality between the fully vaccinated and the unvaccinated, presumably because the most at risk were vaccinated first. However, it is a surprise given the avalanche of propaganda supporting vaccination.
My take on this is that the delta variant is not as lethal as being portrayed and that vaccination is no panacea.

Yes there would be very many good explanations. The data is highly incomplete. E.g. there's no age group split, so what if the vaccinated population presenting were all over 70 years old? What if a significant proportion of the non-vaccinated presenting to hospital were under 70 years old? Where were they presenting? Top-line hospitals or regional hospitals? Comorbidities, or not?

And it doesn't mention at all how many vaccinated persons didn't catch delta, or caught it and didn't present to hospital. It may be that once you present to hospital, you are already gravely ill and in that respect you are one of the % who fell on the wrong side of the COVID reduction risk. E.g. if AZ confers 80% reduced risk of serious disease, there are still going to be vaccinated people who have serious disease, and a % of serious cases will die.

What is really important in the data, I think, is how many vaccinated people presented to hospital at all - only 12% of the total case load.

And honestly I believe you are over-thinking it. The vaccines are proven safe and very effective, you don't really need global death rates or British hospital admission data to make an informed decision. In fact I think all those datasets just muddy the waters.

 

[Geo]

Your last comment about politics - you reckon, what, all the governments of the world are colluding to get their people to vaccinate, and you are suspicious? To what end? What is the purpose of getting everyone vaccinated, if not to protect their safety? Every government on Earth encouraging their countrymen and women to get the shot. Aren’t most conspiracies supposed to be done clandestine, not as a consensus, not out in the open?

They didn't make Kingsman - The secret service for nothing..

 

[tony soprano]

Nope nope

 

[Radoush]

Haven't been vaccinated. No intention of being vaccinated.

Why?

I'll keep it as short as possible
Humankind has evolved alongside the virome since our time began.
Our immune system (if kept healthy) is usually capable of dealing with and adapting to changes in the virome.
Occasionally, a virus will evolve that does cause fatalities in the population. However, there is no evolutionary advantage to a virus to kill its host. Therefore a virus will mutate towards being more contagious and less lethal.
Humans adapt by making changes to our DNA to deal with the new virus. Thus an equilibrium is again reached.
Many of you if you are from my generation will remember the 'childhood' diseases such as measles, mumps, chickenpox.
Most of us were encouraged to play with those infected with these diseases so as to build our immunity to these diseases whilst still young.
Both of my sisters got measles. One of them also got mumps. Although exposed to both, I got neither. My immune system took on board the genetic material provided by the virus, and adapted. This of course has led to a life long immunity.
(I did get chickenpox. Bloody annoying as I recall, but not considered particularly serious).
Occasionally, measles would kill a child - tragic for the family. However, the rate of lethality was well below 0.5% even in those that became ill.

This coronavirus is, from my research, more than 99.5% survivable for those that are affected by it, as long as there are no co-morbidities. It is not possible to determine how many people that are exposed to the virus actually become symptomatic. But it would be fair to assume that it is less than 100%.

As to the 'vaccines' themselves ...
There is debate as to whether these 'jabs' can be considered vaccines by the current definition. It has been argued that they are more of a genetic manipulation tool. Leaving this aside, not one of the manufacturers have claimed that their product will create immunity or prevent transmission. The best they can offer is that they are expected to lessen symptoms.
Given that as of 26th February,2021, VAERS (a passive reporting system in the USA that practically captures less than 2% of actual events - as verified by ***), has reported 1265 deaths and 2743 hospitalisations, 4930 urgent care responses and 240 cases of anaphylaxis, I personally see no justification in taking the risk for questionable benefits.

The PCR test is also fundamentally flawed as a diagnostic tool for Covid. The inventor of the original PCR test, Kary Mullis had stated many times prior to his death, that the test was never designed as a diagnostic tool. Rather it is an amplification tool. If used at a sufficiently high cycle, it will find virtually anything, as we are all exposed to the virome all the time - in the air, the water, the soil.

A study published by Oxford Academia in September 2020, found that at a cycle threshold of 25, the test was 70% accurate, at 30 cycles it is 20% accurate and at 35 cycles, (the level used most often in the US and Europe, only 3% of tests were accurate. That is 97% or positive results were false positive.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but that is the reason I am not intending on getting jabbed. However, I am always open to new and better research should it be presented.
Cheers

Great post thank you

 

[jirskyr]

I have not chosen not to be vaccinated. I have chosen not to be vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy.

Ah, not experimental any more, approved. Every drug pre-approval is experimental, i.e. the AZ vaccine was experimental, the Novavax vaccine IS experimental here (until it isn't).

Also what is specifically wrong with gene therapy, apart from the potential "scare" of the term?

 

[Radoush]

Haven't been vaccinated. No intention of being vaccinated.

Why?

I'll keep it as short as possible
Humankind has evolved alongside the virome since our time began.
Our immune system (if kept healthy) is usually capable of dealing with and adapting to changes in the virome.
Occasionally, a virus will evolve that does cause fatalities in the population. However, there is no evolutionary advantage to a virus to kill its host. Therefore a virus will mutate towards being more contagious and less lethal.
Humans adapt by making changes to our DNA to deal with the new virus. Thus an equilibrium is again reached.
Many of you if you are from my generation will remember the 'childhood' diseases such as measles, mumps, chickenpox.
Most of us were encouraged to play with those infected with these diseases so as to build our immunity to these diseases whilst still young.
Both of my sisters got measles. One of them also got mumps. Although exposed to both, I got neither. My immune system took on board the genetic material provided by the virus, and adapted. This of course has led to a life long immunity.
(I did get chickenpox. Bloody annoying as I recall, but not considered particularly serious).
Occasionally, measles would kill a child - tragic for the family. However, the rate of lethality was well below 0.5% even in those that became ill.

This coronavirus is, from my research, more than 99.5% survivable for those that are affected by it, as long as there are no co-morbidities. It is not possible to determine how many people that are exposed to the virus actually become symptomatic. But it would be fair to assume that it is less than 100%.

As to the 'vaccines' themselves ...
There is debate as to whether these 'jabs' can be considered vaccines by the current definition. It has been argued that they are more of a genetic manipulation tool. Leaving this aside, not one of the manufacturers have claimed that their product will create immunity or prevent transmission. The best they can offer is that they are expected to lessen symptoms.
Given that as of 26th February,2021, VAERS (a passive reporting system in the USA that practically captures less than 2% of actual events - as verified by ***), has reported 1265 deaths and 2743 hospitalisations, 4930 urgent care responses and 240 cases of anaphylaxis, I personally see no justification in taking the risk for questionable benefits.

The PCR test is also fundamentally flawed as a diagnostic tool for Covid. The inventor of the original PCR test, Kary Mullis had stated many times prior to his death, that the test was never designed as a diagnostic tool. Rather it is an amplification tool. If used at a sufficiently high cycle, it will find virtually anything, as we are all exposed to the virome all the time - in the air, the water, the soil.

A study published by Oxford Academia in September 2020, found that at a cycle threshold of 25, the test was 70% accurate, at 30 cycles it is 20% accurate and at 35 cycles, (the level used most often in the US and Europe, only 3% of tests were accurate. That is 97% or positive results were false positive.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but that is the reason I am not intending on getting jabbed. However, I am always open to new and better research should it be presented.
Cheers

Also the human genome is made up of 8 percent virus so you want to make Shaw you don't mess with that

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

A question: Are these 4 injectable substances vaccines? If not, why are they called "vaccines"? :thinking_face:

vaccine

noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease

 

[Kul]

Happily double-jabbed with the wonderful AZ!

No side effects.

 

[jirskyr]

Haven't been vaccinated. No intention of being vaccinated.

Why?

I'll keep it as short as possible
Humankind has evolved alongside the virome since our time began.
Our immune system (if kept healthy) is usually capable of dealing with and adapting to changes in the virome.
Occasionally, a virus will evolve that does cause fatalities in the population. However, there is no evolutionary advantage to a virus to kill its host. Therefore a virus will mutate towards being more contagious and less lethal.
Humans adapt by making changes to our DNA to deal with the new virus. Thus an equilibrium is again reached.
Many of you if you are from my generation will remember the 'childhood' diseases such as measles, mumps, chickenpox.
Most of us were encouraged to play with those infected with these diseases so as to build our immunity to these diseases whilst still young.
Both of my sisters got measles. One of them also got mumps. Although exposed to both, I got neither. My immune system took on board the genetic material provided by the virus, and adapted. This of course has led to a life long immunity.
(I did get chickenpox. Bloody annoying as I recall, but not considered particularly serious).
Occasionally, measles would kill a child - tragic for the family. However, the rate of lethality was well below 0.5% even in those that became ill.

This coronavirus is, from my research, more than 99.5% survivable for those that are affected by it, as long as there are no co-morbidities. It is not possible to determine how many people that are exposed to the virus actually become symptomatic. But it would be fair to assume that it is less than 100%.

As to the 'vaccines' themselves ...
There is debate as to whether these 'jabs' can be considered vaccines by the current definition. It has been argued that they are more of a genetic manipulation tool. Leaving this aside, not one of the manufacturers have claimed that their product will create immunity or prevent transmission. The best they can offer is that they are expected to lessen symptoms.
Given that as of 26th February,2021, VAERS (a passive reporting system in the USA that practically captures less than 2% of actual events - as verified by ***), has reported 1265 deaths and 2743 hospitalisations, 4930 urgent care responses and 240 cases of anaphylaxis, I personally see no justification in taking the risk for questionable benefits.

The PCR test is also fundamentally flawed as a diagnostic tool for Covid. The inventor of the original PCR test, Kary Mullis had stated many times prior to his death, that the test was never designed as a diagnostic tool. Rather it is an amplification tool. If used at a sufficiently high cycle, it will find virtually anything, as we are all exposed to the virome all the time - in the air, the water, the soil.

A study published by Oxford Academia in September 2020, found that at a cycle threshold of 25, the test was 70% accurate, at 30 cycles it is 20% accurate and at 35 cycles, (the level used most often in the US and Europe, only 3% of tests were accurate. That is 97% or positive results were false positive.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but that is the reason I am not intending on getting jabbed. However, I am always open to new and better research should it be presented.
Cheers



Great post thank you

No it's not, it's a horrendous post.

Yes viruses have existed as long as people have existed, and yes eventually some of the population develops natural immunity to a particular virus. How many people do you have to kill however on the journey to develop that natural immunity?

Even if we take your "own research" data - that COVID is 99.5% survivable for no co-morbidities. If half the Australian population gets COVID at some point in their lives, and none of them have a co-morbidity (and none of them are old), it would still kill 62,500 people (of the 12.5M infected).

Now who is going to decide which of those 60 thousand die, many of those deaths preventable? That's about 40 years combined of your average national road toll death.

The second myth you purport is about living with viruses. OK your sisters got measles and survived. Death rates in the US in the 1980s were 0.3%, so for every ~333 babies catching measles 1 died. If 1000 kids got measles, 3 died. Those deaths have basically gone due to vaccination.

Again, who is going to volunteer their baby up to be one of the 3 per 1000 who dies?

And in impoverished areas, malnourished, immunocompromised - death rates up to 30% from measles.

And measles has been known since at least the 9th century, so that's a 0.3% chance of dying despite our species having lived with measles for at least 1200 years. COVID we are talking about an entirely disease-naive population, not one that has had over a thousand years of exposure to develop a community immunity.

But forget measles, you probably aren't old enough to remember smallpox being common - 30% death rate all ages groups.

 

[tig_prmz]

I am all about having choice but something as global and important as this, there shouldn't be an individual risk assessment. Just do what the scientists tell you. Yeh they will get it wrong at times but this will only ever go away if we all did it together.

As someone else mentioned, if you're pregnant, on immuno suppressants etc, listen to your doctor's advice but if you're healthy and have been cleared, I don't think it should come down to choice.

As a health professional, I had to get all my vaccines done before working at a hospital. It shouldn't always come down to the front line workers only doing the right thing.

 

[jirskyr]

Also the human genome is made up of 8 percent virus so you want to make Shaw you don’t mess with that

Who is Shaw?

Seriously what are you talking about.

 

[Demps]

Also the human genome is made up of 8 percent virus so you want to make Shaw you don’t mess with that

Who is Shaw?

Seriously what are you talking about.

Shaw is @hobbo1 's mate.
Think they're co workers.

 

[jirskyr]

I am all about having choice but something as global and important as this, there shouldn't be an individual risk assessment. Just do what the scientists tell you. Yeh they will get it wrong at times but this will only ever go away if we all did it together.

As someone else mentioned, if you're pregnant, on immuno suppressants etc, listen to your doctor's advice but if you're healthy and have been cleared, I don't think it should come down to choice.

As a health professional, I had to get all my vaccines done before working at a hospital. It shouldn't always come down to the front line workers only doing the right thing.

That's a reasonable perspective.

Think of it like climate change - you really need to trust the majority of experts know what they are doing, and that the "consensus" evolves out of rigorous debate and testing on a global scale. If it was a global conspiracy, it would be very easy for someone somewhere to be a whistleblower, and if it was fundamentally wrong for some reason, surely some expert somewhere could identify the mistake and present it to their peers.

When the majority of experts say something is accurate, then the odds are very much in favour of that being true.

So even if climate change was wrong, what harm is there from trying to reduce CO2?

Also - doing nothing very definitely is a bad scenario. No vaccines means we have no exist strategy for COVID - either isolate ourselves form the world or "let it rip" and cop tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths.

 

[tig_prmz]

I am happy for people to not get measles, rubella, smallpox vaccines. The risk of transmission and infection is extremely low and rare now (cough cough, I wonder why). But our risk of transmission and infection of COVID is very high comparatively.

Human race has survived and has lived long due to scientific advances. Yes our bodies are strong but without medicine, our life expectancy would be 30

 

[steve-o]

I got the J&J vaccine back in May.

 

[Snake]

I am happy for people to not get measles, rubella, smallpox vaccines. The risk of transmission and infection is extremely low and rare now (cough cough, I wonder why). But our risk of transmission and infection of COVID is very high comparatively.

Human race has survived and has lived long due to scientific advances. Yes our bodies are strong but without medicine, our life expectancy would be 30

My generation stopped polio in this country ! happy with that !