|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 22:54:44 GMT
And shove you anti science, anti medical research, anti public health advice up your arse. I don't understand why the people who actually know what they doing even bother to try to keep you alive - the species would be better off without you in the gene pool. Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin. If you found that post of mine so offense be why didn't you report me to admin? I'm terms of people spreading misinformation about COVID and vaccines I've not changed my mind - it's dangerous. That sort of misinformation is causing people to make bad decisions about their health and people have died as a result. It's dangerous. That post has nothing to do with the exchange about the Guardian article. You've just dragged it up to distract from the fact that you've lost the arguement. It's nothing about taking a moral high ground and everything to do with the fact your argument doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 23:04:13 GMT
Who said the vaccine prevented infection? Certainly no-one who understands how vaccines work. The narrative hasn't changed - it's you who have never actually understood what was actually said by those who actually know what they are talking about. Are you serious???? Off the top of my head, the CEO of Pfizer, Joe Biden, multiple MSM outlets, Rachael W and I think the CDC did too. Your intractable sanctimony knows no bounds… What has sanctimony got to do with anything? It's cold hard facts. Please provide evidence of those people claiming vaccination prevents infection. Vaccines don't prevent infection. They reduce the impact of infection and reduce the chance of infecting others. The only time vaccines prent infection is when the virus has been completely eradicated from the human population - which is what eventually happened with small pox. There was no way that would happen with COVID any time soon if ever. A successful vaccination program does not have to eradicate a virus it just has to reduce the number of deaths and cases of serious illness. Which is what it has done. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 23:05:42 GMT
Are you serious???? Off the top of my head, the CEO of Pfizer, Joe Biden, multiple MSM outlets, Rachael W and I think the CDC did too. Your intractable sanctimony knows no bounds… What has sanctimony got to do with anything? It's cold hard facts. Please provide evidence of those people claiming vaccination prevents infection. Vaccines don't prevent infection. They reduce the impact of infection and reduce the chance of infecting others. The only time vaccines prent infection is when the virus has been completely eradicated from the human population - which is what eventually happened with small pox. There was no way that would happen with COVID any time soon if ever. A successful vaccination program does not have to eradicate a virus it just has to reduce the number of deaths and cases of serious illness. Which is what it has done. Done it previously on this thread. Look it up yourself. Google it and then come back and apologise Indeed this wonderful vaccine has reduced the number of deaths in fit young people…😆😆😆😆 Edit : I’ll educate you with one: Joe Biden quote to CNN: "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 23:12:26 GMT
Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin. If you found that post of mine so offense be why didn't you report me to admin? I'm terms of people spreading misinformation about COVID and vaccines I've not changed my mind - it's dangerous. That sort of misinformation is causing people to make bad decisions about their health and people have died as a result. It's dangerous. That post has nothing to do with the exchange about the Guardian article. You've just dragged it up to distract from the fact that you've lost the arguement. It's nothing about taking a moral high ground and everything to do with the fact your argument doesn't make sense. I can only laugh, spreading Covid misinformation is dangerous…spot on there…br] The amount of official information that turned out to be false misinformation is staggering |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 18, 2024 23:12:34 GMT
Wrong. I didn't say you were dishing out death threats. I said you wished death on other posters, which is exactly what the above is. Disturbed, distasteful and evidently as per this thread, pretty thick. This isn't the only time you've put a post out of this kind of nature either. Good luck with admin. So enlighten me - what exactly is the difference between "dishing out death threats" and "wishing death on other posters". And where in my previous post did I "wish death" on anyone? The fact is I've driven a massive hole through the logic of your argument about the Guardian printing an article that shows a change in the official COVID narrative and can't come up with a counter arguement so you've done what you always do - resort to personal attacks to deflect from the fact that what you said on the matter doesn't make sense. Surely how I get on with admin isn't a matter of luck - it's down to the evidence you can provide for my appalling behaviour which must be cast iron for you to keep on making them. I can't quite believe what I'm reading to be honest. I suggest you probably stop typing as you risk making yourself sound even more unhinged, if that's actually possible. Although now I'm intrigued. Enlighten us all then with your ethical words of wisdom... What's the difference between stating "the gene pool would be better off without you" and "wishing death" on someone? Your cringe worthy and embarrassing rearguard attempt at clinging on to your creepy pro lockdown wonderland has sunk to new levels. How have you "Driven a massive hole" in my argument? Did you mean to say you've "driven into a massive hole"? I made a fairly obvious point that the Guardian had shifted its tone because we all know they wouldn't have allowed a headline like that to get out a couple of years ago and you in turn, responded with a bunch of incoherent shite that completely misses the point. Here's a tip by the way. If someone on here ignores you, that doesn't mean you've "driven a massive hole" in their argument. More often than not it means they are simply ignoring you. I'd have thought you'd be used to that by now. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 23:18:54 GMT
The vaccination of healthy young people was always considered of marginal benefit and the current advice in the UK is that it is only been offered to children at high risk or who are in regular contact with someone who is immuno suppressed - see www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-vaccination-children-young-people. In terms of saving lives the COVID vaccination program has been a massive success. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 18, 2024 23:20:03 GMT
The vaccination of healthy young people was always considered of marginal benefit and the current advice in the UK is that it is only been offered to children at high risk or who are in regular contact with someone who is immuno suppressed - see www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-vaccination-children-young-people. In terms of saving lives the COVID vaccination program has been a massive success. So you agree vaccinating healthy young people was wrong, good. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 23:30:03 GMT
What has sanctimony got to do with anything? It's cold hard facts. Please provide evidence of those people claiming vaccination prevents infection. Vaccines don't prevent infection. They reduce the impact of infection and reduce the chance of infecting others. The only time vaccines prent infection is when the virus has been completely eradicated from the human population - which is what eventually happened with small pox. There was no way that would happen with COVID any time soon if ever. A successful vaccination program does not have to eradicate a virus it just has to reduce the number of deaths and cases of serious illness. Which is what it has done. Done it previously on this thread. Look it up yourself. Google it and then come back and apologise Indeed this wonderful vaccine has reduced the number of deaths in fit young people…😆😆😆😆 Edit : I’ll educate you with one: Joe Biden quote to CNN: "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." If he said that he was wrong. COVID is the disease caused by the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Vaccination does not stop people being infected by the virus. It does massively reduce the number of people infected by the virus from developing the disease called COVID. However it does not prevent everyone from getting the disease. What Biden said was factually incorrect and he was badly advised to say it. I suspect what he meant was that it was way less likely that you would get COVID if you get vaccinated but to imply that you would most certainly not get it it was just plain wrong. The vaccination program for children is a separate issue and is covered in my last post. It isn't helping to conflate the issues. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 18, 2024 23:54:48 GMT
So enlighten me - what exactly is the difference between "dishing out death threats" and "wishing death on other posters". And where in my previous post did I "wish death" on anyone? The fact is I've driven a massive hole through the logic of your argument about the Guardian printing an article that shows a change in the official COVID narrative and can't come up with a counter arguement so you've done what you always do - resort to personal attacks to deflect from the fact that what you said on the matter doesn't make sense. Surely how I get on with admin isn't a matter of luck - it's down to the evidence you can provide for my appalling behaviour which must be cast iron for you to keep on making them. I can't quite believe what I'm reading to be honest. I suggest you probably stop typing as you risk making yourself sound even more unhinged, if that's actually possible. Although now I'm intrigued. Enlighten us all then with your ethical words of wisdom... What's the difference between stating "the gene pool would be better off without you" and "wishing death" on someone? Your cringe worthy and embarrassing rearguard attempt at clinging on to your creepy pro lockdown wonderland has sunk to new levels. How have you "Driven a massive hole" in my argument? Did you mean to say you've "driven into a massive hole"? I made a fairly obvious point that the Guardian had shifted its tone because we all know they wouldn't have allowed a headline like that to get out a couple of years ago and you in turn, responded with a bunch of incoherent shite that completely misses the point. Here's a tip by the way. If someone on here ignores you, that doesn't mean you've "driven a massive hole" in their argument. More often than not it means they are simply ignoring you. I'd have thought you'd be used to that by now. I misread your initial post - I didn't read the repost of my post about the gene pool. And yes I did say that if people who spread dangerous misinformation about public health advice and the vaccination were allowed to die it would benefit the gene pool. And actually I still think that's true. I'm not sure that constitutes wishing them to die - I'd rather everybody lived as long as possible (you included) - but it certainly does mean that if someone spreading misinformation likely to cause others to make bad health decisions resulting in their unnecessary death then I'm not going to lose any sleep over their passing. And yes I think it would improve the gene pool. If admin wish to ban me for holding that opinion it's their call. I don't think it falls under the legal definition of discrimination because stupidity isn't a protected characteristic. But I'll accept their decision on the matter. The Guardian hasn't changed it's policy on reporting matters relating to COVID. The article just says there is some research that points out that the term "long COVID" isn't helpful. How on earth is that evidence that they have changed their policy? They certainly aren't giving credence to dodgy conspiracy theories - the research they are reporting in is perfectly legitimate and isn't at odds with the mainstream scientific consensus on COVID or the post viral effects of COVID. Your claims about the article being evidence of some profound shift is nonsense. Presumably you are going to demolish my arguement by another round of personal insults. Crack on - it really isn't doing you any favours. |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 19, 2024 4:37:50 GMT
Well at least you’re starting to get onboard with the changing narrative, funny how this vaccine initially prevented infection… Who said the vaccine prevented infection? Certainly no-one who understands how vaccines work. The narrative hasn't changed - it's you who have never actually understood what was actually said by those who actually know what they are talking about. This has to be said in jest? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 19, 2024 7:33:56 GMT
I can't quite believe what I'm reading to be honest. I suggest you probably stop typing as you risk making yourself sound even more unhinged, if that's actually possible. Although now I'm intrigued. Enlighten us all then with your ethical words of wisdom... What's the difference between stating "the gene pool would be better off without you" and "wishing death" on someone? Your cringe worthy and embarrassing rearguard attempt at clinging on to your creepy pro lockdown wonderland has sunk to new levels. How have you "Driven a massive hole" in my argument? Did you mean to say you've "driven into a massive hole"? I made a fairly obvious point that the Guardian had shifted its tone because we all know they wouldn't have allowed a headline like that to get out a couple of years ago and you in turn, responded with a bunch of incoherent shite that completely misses the point. Here's a tip by the way. If someone on here ignores you, that doesn't mean you've "driven a massive hole" in their argument. More often than not it means they are simply ignoring you. I'd have thought you'd be used to that by now. I misread your initial post - I didn't read the repost of my post about the gene pool. And yes I did say that if people who spread dangerous misinformation about public health advice and the vaccination were allowed to die it would benefit the gene pool. And actually I still think that's true. I'm not sure that constitutes wishing them to die - I'd rather everybody lived as long as possible (you included) - but it certainly does mean that if someone spreading misinformation likely to cause others to make bad health decisions resulting in their unnecessary death then I'm not going to lose any sleep over their passing. And yes I think it would improve the gene pool. If admin wish to ban me for holding that opinion it's their call. I don't think it falls under the legal definition of discrimination because stupidity isn't a protected characteristic. But I'll accept their decision on the matter. The Guardian hasn't changed it's policy on reporting matters relating to COVID. The article just says there is some research that points out that the term "long COVID" isn't helpful. How on earth is that evidence that they have changed their policy? They certainly aren't giving credence to dodgy conspiracy theories - the research they are reporting in is perfectly legitimate and isn't at odds with the mainstream scientific consensus on COVID or the post viral effects of COVID. Your claims about the article being evidence of some profound shift is nonsense. Presumably you are going to demolish my arguement by another round of personal insults. Crack on - it really isn't doing you any favours. Says the guy who completely misses the point, subsequently defends and even doubles down on his quote - "the gene pool would be better off without you" and then actually goes on to claim the poster he abused is dishing out "personal insults". You can't quite make it up. One can only assume you wouldn't say these things if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 19, 2024 11:37:19 GMT
I misread your initial post - I didn't read the repost of my post about the gene pool. And yes I did say that if people who spread dangerous misinformation about public health advice and the vaccination were allowed to die it would benefit the gene pool. And actually I still think that's true. I'm not sure that constitutes wishing them to die - I'd rather everybody lived as long as possible (you included) - but it certainly does mean that if someone spreading misinformation likely to cause others to make bad health decisions resulting in their unnecessary death then I'm not going to lose any sleep over their passing. And yes I think it would improve the gene pool. If admin wish to ban me for holding that opinion it's their call. I don't think it falls under the legal definition of discrimination because stupidity isn't a protected characteristic. But I'll accept their decision on the matter. The Guardian hasn't changed it's policy on reporting matters relating to COVID. The article just says there is some research that points out that the term "long COVID" isn't helpful. How on earth is that evidence that they have changed their policy? They certainly aren't giving credence to dodgy conspiracy theories - the research they are reporting in is perfectly legitimate and isn't at odds with the mainstream scientific consensus on COVID or the post viral effects of COVID. Your claims about the article being evidence of some profound shift is nonsense. Presumably you are going to demolish my arguement by another round of personal insults. Crack on - it really isn't doing you any favours. Says the guy who completely misses the point, subsequently defends and even doubles down on his quote - "the gene pool would be better off without you" and then actually goes on to claim the poster he abused is dishing out "personal insults". You can't quite make it up. One can only assume you wouldn't say these things if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard. You really are quite the hypocritical snowflake. You regularly hurl abuse at other posters and have a track record for wishing death on people who in good faith acted to prevent excess deaths during the pandemic (hanging from the nearest lamp post was one of your favourites before more recently resorting to throwing them in the Thames) and when someone is prepared to dish it back you turn into some totally innocent victim. It's really pathetic. I'm no saint but at least I've got the balls to own my own shit. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 19, 2024 11:59:56 GMT
The vaccination of healthy young people was always considered of marginal benefit and the current advice in the UK is that it is only been offered to children at high risk or who are in regular contact with someone who is immuno suppressed - see www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-vaccination-children-young-people. In terms of saving lives the COVID vaccination program has been a massive success. So you agree vaccinating healthy young people was wrong, good. During the pandemic healthy young people were vaccinated to reduce the likelihood of them infecting vulnerable older people who might otherwise die of COVID. And no I don't think that was wrong - I trust that the people making those decision knew what they were doing and that course of action was the one that saved most lives. Protecting vulnerable adults is still a feature of the current vaccination program for young people. The difference now is that the modelling suggests that with lower infection rates there is no net benefit in a mass vaccination program for young people - or indeed for anyone below the age of 70. These decisions are made on the basis of complex mathematical models of infection rates and outcomes. They are not made on the basis of "common sense" because "common sense" translates as "made up bollocks by people with no training or expertise in what they are talking about". I trust the people with the training and ability to work with those complex models, not people whose knowledge is based on some half understood anecdotes from some dodgy website. |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Mar 19, 2024 12:29:52 GMT
So you agree vaccinating healthy young people was wrong, good. . And no I don't think that was wrong - I trust that the people making those decision knew what they were doing and that course of action was the one that saved most lives. Protecting vulnerable adults is still a feature of the current vaccination program for young people. The difference now is that the modelling suggests that with lower infection rates there is no net benefit in a mass vaccination program for young people - or indeed for anyone below the age of 70. These decisions are made on the basis of complex mathematical models of infection rates and outcomes. They are not made on the basis of "common sense" because "common sense" translates as "made up bollocks by people with no training or expertise in what they are talking about". I trust the people with the training and ability to work with those complex models, not people whose knowledge is based on some half understood anecdotes from some dodgy website. So again you're implying that it stops or stopped transmission? |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Mar 19, 2024 13:27:18 GMT
You have read the report haven't you? As I said above, the sampling was done in 2022 when 90% of people were vaccinated and the Omicron was the prevalent strain, its about as much use as a comparison as Pep and Alex Neil in footballing tactics. A report based on testing from the original strain and before vaccines might be worth a read. You're missing my point. I'll ask you the same question. Read the headline of the article and ask yourself honestly, do you think the Guardian would have published articles like this two years ago? Surely you (as someone who firmly supported alot of the messaging around restrictions and the severity of covid) can see that the tone is massively shifting with mainstream media outlets like the Guardian who would just NEVER have even considered posting an article that so openly questions the severity of long covid. No I don't think they would have. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 19, 2024 14:50:14 GMT
Says the guy who completely misses the point, subsequently defends and even doubles down on his quote - "the gene pool would be better off without you" and then actually goes on to claim the poster he abused is dishing out "personal insults". You can't quite make it up. One can only assume you wouldn't say these things if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard. You really are quite the hypocritical snowflake. You regularly hurl abuse at other posters and have a track record for wishing death on people who in good faith acted to prevent excess deaths during the pandemic (hanging from the nearest lamp post was one of your favourites before more recently resorting to throwing them in the Thames) and when someone is prepared to dish it back you turn into some totally innocent victim. It's really pathetic. I'm no saint but at least I've got the balls to own my own shit. 😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2024 15:11:29 GMT
So you agree vaccinating healthy young people was wrong, good. During the pandemic healthy young people were vaccinated to reduce the likelihood of them infecting vulnerable older people who might otherwise die of COVID. And no I don't think that was wrong - I trust that the people making those decision knew what they were doing and that course of action was the one that saved most lives. Protecting vulnerable adults is still a feature of the current vaccination program for young people. The difference now is that the modelling suggests that with lower infection rates there is no net benefit in a mass vaccination program for young people - or indeed for anyone below the age of 70. These decisions are made on the basis of complex mathematical models of infection rates and outcomes. They are not made on the basis of "common sense" because "common sense" translates as "made up bollocks by people with no training or expertise in what they are talking about". I trust the people with the training and ability to work with those complex models, not people whose knowledge is based on some half understood anecdotes from some dodgy website. Reduce the likelihood of them infecting older people? you’ve literally said that the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission… It’s also heartening to hear that you place your trust in “experts” such as Neil Ferguson |
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Mar 19, 2024 15:23:06 GMT
I'd stayed away from this thread for 4 years but i saw someone wearing a face mask in their car yesterday and it made me laugh and sad in equal measures so thought I'd post without realising I was walking in to a full blown shit slinging match haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2024 21:50:51 GMT
During the pandemic healthy young people were vaccinated to reduce the likelihood of them infecting vulnerable older people who might otherwise die of COVID. And no I don't think that was wrong - I trust that the people making those decision knew what they were doing and that course of action was the one that saved most lives. Protecting vulnerable adults is still a feature of the current vaccination program for young people. The difference now is that the modelling suggests that with lower infection rates there is no net benefit in a mass vaccination program for young people - or indeed for anyone below the age of 70. These decisions are made on the basis of complex mathematical models of infection rates and outcomes. They are not made on the basis of "common sense" because "common sense" translates as "made up bollocks by people with no training or expertise in what they are talking about". I trust the people with the training and ability to work with those complex models, not people whose knowledge is based on some half understood anecdotes from some dodgy website. So again you're implying that it stops or stopped transmission? Apparently he’s the knowledgeable one and we are all just anti vax misinformation peddlers all the while he’s contradicting himself, engaging in misinformation and denigrating others. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 20, 2024 7:02:23 GMT
So again you're implying that it stops or stopped transmission? Apparently he’s the knowledgeable one and we are all just anti vax misinformation peddlers all the while he’s contradicting himself, engaging in misinformation and denigrating others. Careful. You'll get the "gene pool would be better off without you" too at this rate ☠️😉 |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 20, 2024 7:16:32 GMT
During the pandemic healthy young people were vaccinated to reduce the likelihood of them infecting vulnerable older people who might otherwise die of COVID. And no I don't think that was wrong - I trust that the people making those decision knew what they were doing and that course of action was the one that saved most lives. Protecting vulnerable adults is still a feature of the current vaccination program for young people. The difference now is that the modelling suggests that with lower infection rates there is no net benefit in a mass vaccination program for young people - or indeed for anyone below the age of 70. These decisions are made on the basis of complex mathematical models of infection rates and outcomes. They are not made on the basis of "common sense" because "common sense" translates as "made up bollocks by people with no training or expertise in what they are talking about". I trust the people with the training and ability to work with those complex models, not people whose knowledge is based on some half understood anecdotes from some dodgy website. Reduce the likelihood of them infecting older people? you’ve literally said that the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission… It’s also heartening to hear that you place your trust in “experts” such as Neil Ferguson The vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. The vaccine stimulates your immune system so that when you are infected your body attacks and kills off the virus before you become ill. This is the medical effect of the vaccine on an individual. In terms of the medical effect on individuals the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It reduces the impact of infection. A side effect of the fact that vaccinated people are killing off the virus before they become ill is that they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people. If a population is unvaccinated the virus is reproducing at a massive rate and the virus rips through the population. If a population is vaccinated less virus is being produced and fewer people become infected. In effect this is a secondary effect of a vaccination program on a population - it reduces transmission. In terms of the medical impact on an individual a vaccine does not prevent transmission. In terms of infection rates within a population a vaccination program reduces the rate of infection. Both statements are true. The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 20, 2024 8:59:50 GMT
“…at they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people.”
Please support empirical peer reviewed research to support this.
This is saying that the vaccine helps prevent transmission which is clearly incorrect
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 20, 2024 9:10:49 GMT
The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about.
😆😆😆😆
Ferguson couldn’t model underpants
His modelling has been so wrong on Covid and other diseases that his credibility has been called into question by other respected experts.
|
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 20, 2024 10:27:06 GMT
Reduce the likelihood of them infecting older people? you’ve literally said that the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission… It’s also heartening to hear that you place your trust in “experts” such as Neil Ferguson The vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. The vaccine stimulates your immune system so that when you are infected your body attacks and kills off the virus before you become ill. This is the medical effect of the vaccine on an individual. In terms of the medical effect on individuals the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It reduces the impact of infection. A side effect of the fact that vaccinated people are killing off the virus before they become ill is that they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people. If a population is unvaccinated the virus is reproducing at a massive rate and the virus rips through the population. If a population is vaccinated less virus is being produced and fewer people become infected. In effect this is a secondary effect of a vaccination program on a population - it reduces transmission. In terms of the medical impact on an individual a vaccine does not prevent transmission. In terms of infection rates within a population a vaccination program reduces the rate of infection. Both statements are true. The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about. If the vaccine stopped you from getting ill then why did everyone I know, including the three in our house, only became ill AFTER taking the vax? |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 20, 2024 10:55:12 GMT
The vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. The vaccine stimulates your immune system so that when you are infected your body attacks and kills off the virus before you become ill. This is the medical effect of the vaccine on an individual. In terms of the medical effect on individuals the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It reduces the impact of infection. A side effect of the fact that vaccinated people are killing off the virus before they become ill is that they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people. If a population is unvaccinated the virus is reproducing at a massive rate and the virus rips through the population. If a population is vaccinated less virus is being produced and fewer people become infected. In effect this is a secondary effect of a vaccination program on a population - it reduces transmission. In terms of the medical impact on an individual a vaccine does not prevent transmission. In terms of infection rates within a population a vaccination program reduces the rate of infection. Both statements are true. The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about. If the vaccine stopped you from getting ill then why did everyone I know, including the three in our house, only became ill AFTER taking the vax? I guess we've all got anecdotes www.politico.eu/article/german-man-receives-217-covid-19-jabs/#:~:text=The%2062%2Dyear%2Dold%20man,team%20of%20researchers%20from%20the |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 20, 2024 11:29:24 GMT
“…at they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people.” Please support empirical peer reviewed research to support this. This is saying that the vaccine helps prevent transmission which is clearly incorrect This report states: 1. The purpose of this review was to identify and examine evidence on the effect of vaccination on transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19) from people who contract COVID19 post-vaccination. The review includes 43 primary studies (18 preprints, one non-peer reviewed report) (search up to 22 October 2021): 13 studies assessed the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on transmission of COVID-19, and 32 studies assessed the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on COVID-19 viral loads (2 studies assessed both outcomes). 2. There was evidence across 13 transmission studies (all observational, all variants) that fully vaccinated index cases transmitted COVID-19 to their contacts less than unvaccinated index cases, particularly for wild-type and non-Delta variants (moderate certainty on GRADE), and this reduction was substantial (for example, more than 50% reduction in transmission) in many studies. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 20, 2024 11:33:07 GMT
Precisely. Epidemiology is the study of entire populations. Within a population you are going to get statistical anomalies - you can't turn specific incidents into generalities. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 20, 2024 11:42:06 GMT
The vaccine itself does not prevent transmission. The vaccine stimulates your immune system so that when you are infected your body attacks and kills off the virus before you become ill. This is the medical effect of the vaccine on an individual. In terms of the medical effect on individuals the vaccine does not prevent transmission. It reduces the impact of infection. A side effect of the fact that vaccinated people are killing off the virus before they become ill is that they are shedding less virus after they have become infected which means they are less likely to infect other people. If a population is unvaccinated the virus is reproducing at a massive rate and the virus rips through the population. If a population is vaccinated less virus is being produced and fewer people become infected. In effect this is a secondary effect of a vaccination program on a population - it reduces transmission. In terms of the medical impact on an individual a vaccine does not prevent transmission. In terms of infection rates within a population a vaccination program reduces the rate of infection. Both statements are true. The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about. If the vaccine stopped you from getting ill then why did everyone I know, including the three in our house, only became ill AFTER taking the vax? Because you and your family were unlucky? I know some people who felt a bit dodgy for 24 hours after having the vaccine (about 3) but I know more people who were made far worse by covid before the vaccines came out although I don't know anyone who was hospitalised. My next door neighbour was ill for 6 months with the after effects of covid. All this is anecdotal and I wouldn't/shouldn't use this to prove or argue against any properly conducted epidemiological studies. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 20, 2024 12:21:05 GMT
The study of the impact of a vaccination program on a population is called epidemiology. Ferguson is a highly qualified and respected expert in epidemiology. He understands the difference between the medical effects of a vaccine and the impact of a vaccination program on populations. You clearly don't. When it comes to matter relating to epidemiology I choose to believe Ferguson. He knows what he's talking about. 😆😆😆😆 Ferguson couldn’t model underpants His modelling has been so wrong on Covid and other diseases that his credibility has been called into question by other respected experts. This report by the US National Library of medicine is quite complimentary about Fergusson's work: Strengths and Limitations.IC (Imperial College) model was one of the first model by a reputed group to report the potential impact of COVID-19 with and without interventions. The model was far more detailed than other models that were published until then. The authors also took great care parameterizing the model with the best disease transmission data that was available until then. The model also considered a very rich set of interventions and was one of the first to analyze pulsing intervention. On the flip side, the representation of the underlying social contact network was relatively simple. Second, often the details of how interventions were represented were not clear. Since the publication of their article, the modelers have made their code open and the research community has witnessed an intense debate on the pros and cons of various modeling assumptions and the resulting software system, see [Cha20]. We believe that despite certain valid criticisms, overall, the results represented a significant advance in terms of the when the results were put out and the level of details incorporated in the models.There is an on-going debate about the accuracy of epidemiological models and Fergusson's work is as open to criticism as anyone's. However he is far from being discredited by his peers. To help me decide on who to believe could you provide me with some peer reviewed evidence in support of your own work in the field of epidemiology - I can't seem to find any? |
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on May 31, 2024 11:36:03 GMT
Astra Zeneca jabs withdrawn from the market.
|
|
