Red88_Tiger
Well-known member
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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@jirskyr said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414541) said:@weststigsrdabest said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414103) said: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?
@fibrodreaming said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414097) said:@jirskyr said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413281) said: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.
@fibrodreaming said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414106) said: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.
@jirskyr said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414541) said: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?
@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414374) said:@cochise said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413629) said:@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413628) said: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
@fibrodreaming said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414355) said:I have not chosen not to be vaccinated. I have chosen not to be vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy.
@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414374) said:@cochise said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413629) said:@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413628) said: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
@radoush said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414579) said:@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414374) said:@cochise said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413629) said:@yeti said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1413628) said: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
@radoush said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414583) said:Also the human genome is made up of 8 percent virus so you want to make Shaw you don’t mess with that
@jirskyr said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414589) said:@radoush said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414583) said: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.
@tig_prmz said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414588) said: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.
@tig_prmz said in [Have you been vaccinated?](/post/1414593) said: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