Vaccine thread

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

No men live with their choices, and don't expect others to make it all better for them.

 

No one forced a vaccine on you. You were free to choose.

Like the way you shouldn't expect other people to take a pharmaceutical product for your benefit, especially when the data doesn't even support that justification?

 

I did make a choice, and I did not get the jab. As a result, I was barred from public places for quite a long time on a false justification and with the threat of government force being used against me.

 

It seems crystal clear that this was a catastrophic failure of public policy.

[Spur1]

3 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Like the way you shouldn't expect other people to take a pharmaceutical product for your benefit, especially when the data doesn't even support that justification?

 

I did make a choice, and I did not get the jab. As a result, I was barred from public places for quite a long time on a false justification and with the threat of government force being used against me.

 

It seems crystal clear that this was a catastrophic failure of public policy.

Shall I call you a whambulence?

[The Arrogant Worms]

14 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Like the way you shouldn't expect other people to take a pharmaceutical product for your benefit, especially when the data doesn't even support that justification?

 

I did make a choice, and I did not get the jab. As a result, I was barred from public places for quite a long time on a false justification and with the threat of government force being used against me.

 

It seems crystal clear that this was a catastrophic failure of public policy.

Which public places and what Govt force?

 

And what is your original forum name?

 

Do you comment on anything else besides vaccines?

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Got my 6th jab two months ago, am part of an at-risk demographic, haven't had covid the whole time, or blood clotting either.  Public health is a great thing and we should have more of it, not less.  But hey, that's just the microchip talking. 

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Which public places and what Govt force?

 

And what is your original forum name?

 

Do you comment on anything else besides vaccines?

Restaurants, sporting events, movie theaters, etc. etc. Not to mention border crossings. The police were authorized to physically remove me if I did not have a valid vaccine passport. As I've outlined with many posts in this thread, not only is the principle of this policy dubious, the data doesn't even support the third party benefits of such a policy as was implemented here.

 

My username has always been this one, I had been active on the official forum for over 10 years until it closed down and I simply didn't migrate to this one until recently.

 

Yes I do comment on the actual Canucks from time to time, but when this topic arose, I wanted to share my views.

[Spur1]

6 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Which public places and what Govt force?

 

And what is your original forum name?

 

Do you comment on anything else besides vaccines?

He is simply trying to justify his bad decision not to get vaccinated. 

[Satchmo]

51 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

"The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected"

 

This is far from established, and there is significant evidence that the viral load in the noses of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are the same. In fact, as this paper indicates, there appears to be much more asymptomatic people who carry viral load in their noses among the vaccinated populations, suggesting that the vaccine can reduce a person's symptoms to nothing, while they still become infected and carry the virus in the same capacity as an unvaccinated person.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/

 

(1."Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time [2]. Reports predominantly from non-US settings suggest that viral loads from nasal swabs are similar among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals; other reports suggest that virus levels are lower in unvaccinated persons "

 

"There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54)" (Ct values refer to viral load)

 

"In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites."

 

There is another report that was referenced in National Geographic's article which concluded:

 

(2."Vaccination status had negligible effects on Ct values (d<0.2) for all age groups considered except those aged 0-11 years (Supplemental Table 2). In this group, there were very few vaccinated individuals (N=7), as would be expected because vaccines had not been approved for those 11 and under for most of our study period. Therefore, despite the significant effect size (d=0.79, p=0.0466), we do not believe our data strongly support the notion that vaccination status has a strong effect on Ct value in children under 12. When comparing Ct values between unvaccinated and vaccinated within males and females, negligible differences were observed (female: d=0.14, male: d=0.15; Supplemental Table 3)."

(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text)

 

Also, an analysis done between 68 countries and also between 2947 counties in the USA found no correlation between vaccination levels and reduction in Covid 19 cases:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

(3."Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

 

So this all begs the question: if the vaccine definitively lowers viral loads and helps to prevent infection, why is there no clear signal of this in the data? Why does it appear viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people? Why didn't highly vaccinated countries or counties have fewer cases than low vaccinated countries or counties? This would all seem to suggest that these vaccines do not lower viral loads or prevent infection.

 

Again, if the government is to mandate something, there should NOT be this amount of conflicting data. It should be clear and unequivocal. If anything, I would say the preponderance of evidence is against any significant effect of the vaccine against viral load or transmission.

Are you working off a script like a telemarketer does?  Do you call your supervisor when you get stuck?

 

You found a paper that contradicts what JIHN's paper said. Congrats. The internet is a wonderful place for scavenger hunts isn't?  You really can find anything if you look.  While you are doing so, you can just ignore the ones you don't like because they do not support your claims.

 

 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Spur1 said:

He is simply trying to justify his bad decision not to get vaccinated. 

As I've outlined extensively in this thread, the benefits are vanishingly small for younger, healthy people, and the risk profile is present, and the third party benefits are tenuous to non-existent. I am exceedingly happy with my decision not to take the vaccine.

 

I sincerely hope public policy is more reasonably and does not put such weight on the false hope of a pharmaceutical savior which falls far short of it's promise next time around. Public policy should be firmly rooted in data, but with these vaccine mandates, they were not. I refer, once again, to my earlier post regarding viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people and the paper which found no correlation between the increase of covid cases and rates of vaccination.

[Xanlet]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

Are you working off a script like a telemarketer does?  Do you call your supervisor when you get stuck?

 

You found a paper that contradicts what JIHN's paper said. Congrats. The internet is a wonderful place for scavenger hunts isn't?  You really can find anything if you look.  While you are doing so, you can just ignore the ones you don't like because they do not support your claims.

 

 

When the government is imposing restrictions on people and demanding that they take a brand new pharmaceutical product, there should not be such a wealth of conflicting information. First of all, the idea of pressuring people to take a pharmaceutical product for the benefit of others is dubious at best to begin with, but then to have such a sketchy amount of data as justification for this particular example? Sorry, I find that unacceptable in the extreme.

 

Also, I'm firmly a one man operation. You could say I'm my own boss.

[Satchmo]

Well maybe the next thing you should do is try to convince everyone else that you are right and they are wrong.   Oh wait, that is what you are doing.   How's it going?   Won over any converts yet?

[Bob Long]

45 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Like the way you shouldn't expect other people to take a pharmaceutical product for your benefit, especially when the data doesn't even support that justification?

 

I did make a choice, and I did not get the jab. As a result, I was barred from public places for quite a long time on a false justification and with the threat of government force being used against me.

 

It seems crystal clear that this was a catastrophic failure of public policy.

 

No you made a choice, and expected every one else to pander to you. And instead of just living your choice like a man, you look for excuses like a child would.

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Well maybe the next thing you should do is try to convince everyone else that you are right and they are wrong.   Oh wait, that is what you are doing.   How's it going?   Won over any converts yet?

This may surprise you, but merely "converting" people is not the sole purpose of the discussion in my opinion. Certainly, it would be gratifying to present a compelling enough case for people to reconsider their own conclusions, but I think most people know that in an adversarial conversation, this is unlikely as people have a tendency to "circle the wagons" and simply double down on their previous position.

 

No, for me, I like these discussions as it allows me to refine my own point of view. It motivates me to ensure my positions are all supported by data and principle. This type of back and forth is why dialogue is so important in my view, as it also shows which people are interested in truth, principle, and understanding and which people prefer things like labels and tribalism or rely too heavily on generalities. I hope my own conduct (while never perfect) at least shows my own good faith in this dialogue.

 

Also, there is the potential for silent observers to witness both sides present their cases and judge on their own without participating. These are the people who can bypass the natural defensiveness that arises in actually taking part in the conversation, and hopefully, even if they have not "converted" as you said, at least perhaps they will consider what I have said without hostility.

 

We all have biases and predispositions, but it is the synergistic power of good faith dialogue which, at its best, can move us forward to better, more truthful and accurate positions. So to everyone who has participated in this dialogue in good faith, I'd like to say thank you and that I appreciate you.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

This may surprise you, but merely "converting" people is not the sole purpose of the discussion in my opinion. Certainly, it would be gratifying to present a compelling enough case for people to reconsider their own conclusions, but I think most people know that in an adversarial conversation, this is unlikely as people have a tendency to "circle the wagons" and simply double down on their previous position.

 

No, for me, I like these discussions as it allows me to refine my own point of view. It motivates me to ensure my positions are all supported by data and principle. This type of back and forth is why dialogue is so important in my view, as it also shows which people are interested in truth, principle, and understanding and which people prefer things like labels and tribalism or rely too heavily on generalities. I hope my own conduct (while never perfect) at least shows my own good faith in this dialogue.

 

Also, there is the potential for silent observers to witness both sides present their cases and judge on their own without participating. These are the people who can bypass the natural defensiveness that arises in actually taking part in the conversation, and hopefully, even if they have not "converted" as you said, at least perhaps they will consider what I have said without hostility.

 

We all have biases and predispositions, but it is the synergistic power of good faith dialogue which, at its best, can move us forward to better, more truthful and accurate positions. So to everyone who has participated in this dialogue in good faith, I'd like to say thank you and that I appreciate you.

I'll be honest and say I just did not bother to read that past the few words.  Goodbye.

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

This may surprise you, but merely "converting" people is not the sole purpose of the discussion in my opinion. Certainly, it would be gratifying to present a compelling enough case for people to reconsider their own conclusions, but I think most people know that in an adversarial conversation, this is unlikely as people have a tendency to "circle the wagons" and simply double down on their previous position.

 

No, for me, I like these discussions as it allows me to refine my own point of view. It motivates me to ensure my positions are all supported by data and principle. This type of back and forth is why dialogue is so important in my view, as it also shows which people are interested in truth, principle, and understanding and which people prefer things like labels and tribalism or rely too heavily on generalities. I hope my own conduct (while never perfect) at least shows my own good faith in this dialogue.

 

Also, there is the potential for silent observers to witness both sides present their cases and judge on their own without participating. These are the people who can bypass the natural defensiveness that arises in actually taking part in the conversation, and hopefully, even if they have not "converted" as you said, at least perhaps they will consider what I have said without hostility.

 

We all have biases and predispositions, but it is the synergistic power of good faith dialogue which, at its best, can move us forward to better, more truthful and accurate positions. So to everyone who has participated in this dialogue in good faith, I'd like to say thank you and that I appreciate you.

 

I get it now, this is the first time in your life you faced a real consequence. 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Of course it would have been better if the vaccines were more effective, but they did make a difference when people got sick.  I get the distrust of big pharma and would have happily got the Cuban or Chinese vaccines instead, but they weren't on offer. 

I'm not part of the Bonny Henry cult and can't understand why the WHO bureaucracy was so stubborn in sticking to the droplet theory of transmission when there's so much hard evidence for aerosol transmission.  It was borderline criminal to force health workers to use surgical over N95 masks. 

But I'll never be a libertarian who rejects collective solutions to collective problems.  Public policy is essential, and it needs to be evidence- not authority-based. 

[StrayDog]

3 hours ago, Xanlet said:

Restaurants, sporting events, movie theaters, etc. etc. Not to mention border crossings. The police were authorized to physically remove me if I did not have a valid vaccine passport. As I've outlined with many posts in this thread, not only is the principle of this policy dubious, the data doesn't even support the third party benefits of such a policy as was implemented here.

You do understand those are private, not public spaces, yes? As such, they have the right to deny you entry if they believe you could be a danger (ie carrying a virulent disease). Same with border crossing - no country has to allow you entry. And police are there to ensure public safety from, you guessed it, potentially dangerous individuals (such as those who could be carrying a virulent disease). The fact you were denied any of this stems from your decision to not be vaccinated. Decisions carry consequences, and the consequence of being unvaccinated against covid meant you could not go certain places. It's no different than the great number of schools that require MMR vaccines for any child that wants to attend. Or do you also disagree with that policy?

[Xanlet]

53 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

You do understand those are private, not public spaces, yes? As such, they have the right to deny you entry if they believe you could be a danger (ie carrying a virulent disease). Same with border crossing - no country has to allow you entry. And police are there to ensure public safety from, you guessed it, potentially dangerous individuals (such as those who could be carrying a virulent disease). The fact you were denied any of this stems from your decision to not be vaccinated. Decisions carry consequences, and the consequence of being unvaccinated against covid meant you could not go certain places. It's no different than the great number of schools that require MMR vaccines for any child that wants to attend. Or do you also disagree with that policy?

For such a policy to be justified even under your own rationale, you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that unvaccinated people pose a significantly higher danger to other people than vaccinated people, and as I outlined extensively in this thread, that is simply not what the evidence shows. Also, people who had been naturally infected would have immunity, so why were they also discriminated as "unvaccinated"? Members of the public were discriminated against from patronizing businesses open to the public based on a private medical decision and not on any tangible risk to other patrons. Remember, private businesses WERE FORBIDDEN from allowing unvaccinated people, it was not a private decision from the private business, it was a mandate imposed on the businesses as much on the unvaccinated. Let's keep our memory of the events clear.

Edited June 9 by Xanlet

[StrayDog]

18 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

For such a policy to be justified even under your own rationale, you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that unvaccinated people pose a significantly higher danger to other people than vaccinated people, and as I outlined extensively in this thread, that is simply not what the evidence shows. Also, people who had been naturally infected would have immunity, so why were they also discriminated as "unvaccinated"? Members of the public were discriminated against by businesses open to the public based on a private medical decision and not on any tangible risk to other patrons.

Unvaccinated people are far more likely to be carrying an infectious disease, and therefore pose a higher risk to the general public than vaccinated people. Please show evidence that gainsays that. 

People who were infected are carrying the disease, and so were "discriminated" against; because they were carrying a virulent and potentially deadly disease.

Your private medical decisions have zero basis on a business trying to protect not only customers, but staff members and their families. Your private medical decisions do not give you the right to potentially put others at risk. You have the right to be unvaccinated. A business has the right to tell you that you can not enter it you are unvaccinated.

[Xanlet]

Just now, StrayDog said:

Unvaccinated people are far more likely to be carrying an infectious disease, and therefore pose a higher risk to the general public than vaccinated people. Please show evidence that gainsays that. 

People who were infected are carrying the disease, and so were "discriminated" against; because they were carrying a virulent and potentially deadly disease.

Your private medical decisions have zero basis on a business trying to protect not only customers, but staff members and their families. Your private medical decisions do not give you the right to potentially put others at risk. You have the right to be unvaccinated. A business has the right to tell you that you can not enter it you are unvaccinated.

Again, let me reiterate, it was NOT the businesses telling unvaccinated people they could not enter, it was a mandate from the government which applied to all such businesses, regardless of whether the business agreed or not, they were compelled to comply.

 

As far as the evidence which gainsays it, please refer to the post I made 5 hours ago on the last page, multiple different sources I use show that there is no difference in viral load among vaccinated and unvaccinated when being nasally swabbed and there is no difference in Covid-19 case increases in highly vaccinated or lowly vaccinated countries or counties.

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Again, let me reiterate, it was NOT the businesses telling unvaccinated people they could not enter, it was a mandate from the government which applied to all such businesses, regardless of whether the business agreed or not, they were compelled to comply.

 

As far as the evidence which gainsays it, please refer to the post I made 5 hours ago on the last page, multiple different sources I use show that there is no difference in viral load among vaccinated and unvaccinated when being nasally swabbed and there is no difference in Covid-19 case increases in highly vaccinated or lowly vaccinated countries or counties.

 

"Please refer to the post I made 5 hours ago" 

 

You don't seem to get it, you are not entitled to what you think you are.

[JIAHN]

7 hours ago, Xanlet said:

"The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected"

 

This is far from established, and there is significant evidence that the viral load in the noses of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are the same. In fact, as this paper indicates, there appears to be much more asymptomatic people who carry viral load in their noses among the vaccinated populations, suggesting that the vaccine can reduce a person's symptoms to nothing, while they still become infected and carry the virus in the same capacity as an unvaccinated person.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/

 

(1."Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time [2]. Reports predominantly from non-US settings suggest that viral loads from nasal swabs are similar among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals; other reports suggest that virus levels are lower in unvaccinated persons "

 

"There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54)" (Ct values refer to viral load)

 

"In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites."

 

There is another report that was referenced in National Geographic's article which concluded:

 

(2."Vaccination status had negligible effects on Ct values (d<0.2) for all age groups considered except those aged 0-11 years (Supplemental Table 2). In this group, there were very few vaccinated individuals (N=7), as would be expected because vaccines had not been approved for those 11 and under for most of our study period. Therefore, despite the significant effect size (d=0.79, p=0.0466), we do not believe our data strongly support the notion that vaccination status has a strong effect on Ct value in children under 12. When comparing Ct values between unvaccinated and vaccinated within males and females, negligible differences were observed (female: d=0.14, male: d=0.15; Supplemental Table 3)."

(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text)

 

Also, an analysis done between 68 countries and also between 2947 counties in the USA found no correlation between vaccination levels and reduction in Covid 19 cases:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

(3."Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

 

So this all begs the question: if the vaccine definitively lowers viral loads and helps to prevent infection, why is there no clear signal of this in the data? Why does it appear viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people? Why didn't highly vaccinated countries or counties have fewer cases than low vaccinated countries or counties? This would all seem to suggest that these vaccines do not lower viral loads or prevent infection.

 

Again, if the government is to mandate something, there should NOT be this amount of conflicting data. It should be clear and unequivocal. If anything, I would say the preponderance of evidence is against any significant effect of the vaccine against viral load or transmission.

 

I find it hard not to insult you...........

 

The mask prevented the Virial load from moving further out, not that it prevented the Virial load in the nose prevented the spread......twist things around why don't you!

 

Vaccine on the other hand was used to slow down severe cases, there allowing hospitals to not be over loaded with Anti-vaxer's..........I have asthma, high blood pressure, heart disease, and other associated disease.

 

You pick and choose, reports, and gossip, like you are an expert.............................

 

Do you know what executive thinking is? Because you need to use it............it is simple, the more we put in front of the train, the slower the train will go.

 

Respect my beliefs, fears, and reality, and I will respect yours...............if you do not, then prepare for, more than just an argument.............

 

Last night, I watched a show on D-Day..............reports were discussed that, there were some errors...........yet it worked

 

Apply this to covid......................and while you are at it consider what happens next time, while you are protesting............consider what might happen if both sides get organized and it becomes violent. Because if it is the "BIG ONE" then if you walk into that store, you might just get shot! I mean seriously! 

 

Consider that anti-vaxers are a very small section of the population..........consider that.

 

You think for some reason you get all these rights, and we have none..............well I got news for you!

 

 

[JIAHN]

6 hours ago, Xanlet said:

This may surprise you, but merely "converting" people is not the sole purpose of the discussion in my opinion. Certainly, it would be gratifying to present a compelling enough case for people to reconsider their own conclusions, but I think most people know that in an adversarial conversation, this is unlikely as people have a tendency to "circle the wagons" and simply double down on their previous position.

 

No, for me, I like these discussions as it allows me to refine my own point of view. It motivates me to ensure my positions are all supported by data and principle. This type of back and forth is why dialogue is so important in my view, as it also shows which people are interested in truth, principle, and understanding and which people prefer things like labels and tribalism or rely too heavily on generalities. I hope my own conduct (while never perfect) at least shows my own good faith in this dialogue.

 

Also, there is the potential for silent observers to witness both sides present their cases and judge on their own without participating. These are the people who can bypass the natural defensiveness that arises in actually taking part in the conversation, and hopefully, even if they have not "converted" as you said, at least perhaps they will consider what I have said without hostility.

 

We all have biases and predispositions, but it is the synergistic power of good faith dialogue which, at its best, can move us forward to better, more truthful and accurate positions. So to everyone who has participated in this dialogue in good faith, I'd like to say thank you and that I appreciate you.

 

As much as I like your position and statement here............I find you dug in and have not agree to anyone else's POV, no matter what is brought forward.....

 

What I really, am alarmed about, is your total lack of respect for the majority.......you sound like a crow

 

What does a crow really say anyways? Before he flies off..................

[JIAHN]

To all, I want to apologize for my tone..............I loved my uncle, and it is the anti-vaxer's that gave medical nurses and doctor's problems.......

 

I can not stand the POV and it makes me emotional...................

[UncleBen]

8 hours ago, Alflives said:

What exactly did the antivaxxers have the right to do that was barred? 

Your buddy JT declared we were basically lepers..not allowed on planes or trains or at public events.Remember Mr science himself Fauci saying don't invite us to family Christmas dinner.The list is long but the coercen didn't work so there's that.

[Alflives]

41 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

Your buddy JT declared we were basically lepers..not allowed on planes or trains or at public events.Remember Mr science himself Fauci saying don't invite us to family Christmas dinner.The list is long but the coercen didn't work so there's that.

Isn’t dr. Fauci American? And I think we are all waiting for which Charter rights were denied? Of course that’s rhetorical. Maybe it’s time to move on? Canada did a great job in keeping people as safe as possible and keeping our hospitals from being overwhelmed. 
Again vaccines are good. Science is good.