Another thread arguing about the value of vaccines (Ed.)

[Risteard]

2) the covid injection hugely reduced the risk of serious illness from covid, so whilst technically the risks are cumulative, the overall risk is far far far lower

Evidence for this erroneous claim?

 

[IT Minion]

Evidence for this erroneous claim?

Persistence in risk and effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long-term health consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection - Nature Communications

The long-term health consequences of COVID-19 infection are not fully understood. In this retrospective cohort study from Hong Kong, the authors describe changes in the risk of various clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality for one year following COVID-19 infection and how they vary by...

www.nature.com

Also common sense. Most vaccines aren't 100% effective at preventing infection. Most of the work to reduce the severity. Like the various COVID vaccines.

Which if the 20+ different vaccines were you most worried by?

 

[noseall]

The injection didn't stop you getting COVID

True. It was never a well kept secret.

though, so the risks are cumulative.

Nonsense. However, the benefits were self evident.

 

[Notch7]

Evidence for this erroneous claim?

I provided the evidence, I’ve screenshotted it below

Here is a quote from one of the studies I linked

“Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021”

 

[Risteard]

I provided the evidence, I’ve screenshotted it below

Here is a quote from one of the studies I linked

“Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021”

In other words a wild claim without evidence. It might have stated "we wish to claim that this is beneficial, although our claim may well have no basis."

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Evidence for this erroneous claim?

Incredible comment.

 

[Notch7]

In other words a wild claim without evidence. It might have stated "we wish to claim that this is beneficial, although our claim may well have no basis."

That is simply not true, you haven’t read the study which provides the data that’s backs up the conclusion.

It is not a wild claim without evidence, the data shows that.


Risteard you seem awfully ignorant of the fact your posts are indeed: “wild claim without evidence”


I’m bored of debating with a foolish anti vaxxer, if want to remain ignorant because you rely on blind prejudice…..then do so, it’s your loss not mine

 

[denso13]

It might have stated "we wish to claim that this is beneficial, although our claim may well have no basis."

All you are stating is " I wish to claim this peer review study is wrong". But it isn't...

 

[carmanmemoranda]

In other words a wild claim without evidence. It might have stated "we wish to claim that this is beneficial, although our claim may well have no basis."

I much prefer world wide scientific data to personal thoughts.

It's a bit 1 sided though, brains versus conspiracy

 

[Risteard]

I much prefer world wide scientific data to personal thoughts.

It's a bit 1 sided though, brains versus conspiracy

Given that pharmaceutical companies self-audit, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the veracity of their claims.

 

[IT Minion]

Given that pharmaceutical companies self-audit, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the veracity of their claims.

Of course. But since that wasn't a study by a pharmaceutical company, you're just waffling.

 

[Notch7]

Given that pharmaceutical companies self-audit, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the veracity of their claims.

You are just a stream of logical fallacies, misinformation, whataboutery.

You know you are using false arguments
You are lying to yourself

 

[Risteard]

You are just a stream of logical fallacies, misinformation, whataboutery.

You know you are using false arguments
You are lying to yourself

I'm really not, but if you wish to be addicted to lethal injections then sadly there's not much that I can do about that.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Given that pharmaceutical companies self-audit, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the veracity of their claims.

It's a bit 1 sided. Brains versus conspiracy

 

[ellal]

Nobody has been called an antivaxxer just because they privately chose not to have a vaccine.

So your post is false.

You better ask notchy about that one...

So maybe you will finally answer this...

Do you consider anyone who decides not to have a jab of any kind but chooses to have others an 'anti vaxxer'?

Or do you erroneously use this term just for those who chose not to have the 'virus' jabs?

'some protection'?

Now try to turn that into a reason for taking multiple not fully tested jabs...

Your argument is therefore no different from mine...

I prefer to get the protection that my immune system offers and don't wish that to be compromised...

When vaccines have been thoroughly tested on as many control groups as possible, then I will happily have them and have done so in the past...

So that doesn't make me an 'anti vaxxer'...

That term has been hijacked

You are an anti vaxxer