Covid Deniers and Anti Vaxxers

[The Bastard]

24 minutes ago, Danoo said:

If you don't think viral load has any effect on transmission whatsoever then there really is no point in continuing this conversation. 

You would expect that viral load may have an effect on transmission, but it's not the only factor involved. If you're citing "conflicting studies" as you mentioned earlier, then ideally you should be citing a study that focuses on transmission in vaccinated patients, rather than just viral load - apples and oranges.

As noted, there are a number of studies that cite reduced transmission in populations with a high vaccination rate. Do you have a counter-study that says that the transmission rate is the same or higher ?

[Danoo]

6 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

You would expect that viral load may have an effect on transmission, but it's not the only factor involved. If you're citing "conflicting studies" as you mentioned earlier, then ideally you should be citing a study that focuses on transmission in vaccinated patients, rather than just viral load - apples and oranges.

As noted, there are a number of studies that cite reduced transmission in populations with a high vaccination rate. Do you have a counter-study that says that the transmission rate is the same or higher ?

Listen if you want to try and look smart then continue with your pseudo-scientific expertise. If the CDC, after assessing all the data and science available, have come to the conclusion that viral load from Delta infection is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and has suggested an increased risk of transmission due to the high viral loads (and were also concerned enough to change their recommendations and put out a press release to that effect), then I'll listen to them over some bloke on the internet. 

Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC 

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Yes, he certainly came across in the longer interview as irrational.  

 

[TheTeapot]

5 minutes ago, Danoo said:

Listen if you want to try and look smart then continue with your pseudo-scientific expertise. If the CDC, after assessing all the data and science available, have come to the conclusion that viral load from Delta infection is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and has suggested an increased risk of transmission due to the high viral loads (and were also concerned enough to change their recommendations and put out a press release to that effect), then I'll listen to them over some bloke on the internet. 

Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC 

Seeing as its this thread...

I think people would be wise to take stuff coming from the US with significant caution. Just as under the insanity of the Trump administration there continues to be a major problem over there with politics interfering, and where there is politics there is money, and vested interests. The CDC recently has been coming out with some pretty absurd stuff, masking 2 year olds and shit, there's something not right in that organisation.

[The Bastard]

27 minutes ago, Danoo said:

Listen if you want to try and look smart then continue with your pseudo-scientific expertise. If the CDC, after assessing all the data and science available, have come to the conclusion that viral load from Delta infection is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and has suggested an increased risk of transmission due to the high viral loads (and were also concerned enough to change their recommendations and put out a press release to that effect), then I'll listen to them over some bloke on the internet. 

Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC 

I'm surprised to be accused of pseudoscience since I've asked for scientific studies (that you said you'd seen) showing the similar (or increased) level of transmission in a population with a high vaccination rate. In response you've posted me back a news article.  It's nothing personal, and I think you make a good point about Viral Load being the same across groups, but I'm genuinely interested to see those studies that would reflect a similar actual transmission rate in a highly-vaccinated population. The majority of studies I've seen seem to indicate that a high level of vaccination leads to a reduced level of transmission. Is there some confusion over load vs transmission perhaps ?

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Danoo said:

Listen if you want to try and look smart then continue with your pseudo-scientific expertise. If the CDC, after assessing all the data and science available, have come to the conclusion that viral load from Delta infection is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and has suggested an increased risk of transmission due to the high viral loads (and were also concerned enough to change their recommendations and put out a press release to that effect), then I'll listen to them over some bloke on the internet. 

Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC 

But the interesting thing is the length of time a vaccinated and unvaccinated person has the high viral load for. There aren’t many studies that measure the length of the window of infectiousness 

[ricardo]

Apple rightly draws attention to the grave concerns expressed by the many doctors behind the Covid 19 ‘assembly’:

 

https://www.covid19assembly.org

 

Thousands of doctors and medical professionals Worldwide have also expressed similar concerns about the vaccine roll-out - many now refusing to administer the vaccine:

 

https://worlddoctorsalliance.com

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Only the ignorant, or those with an agenda, would attempt to dismiss these valid concerns, or to ‘rubbish’ the qualifications of all of these medical professionals.

 

Also behind the Covid 19 Assembly are Francis Hoar, a highly respected UK barrister - who is also supported by many other legal professionals - and Toby Young, associate editor of The Spectator. These people have put their reputations 'on the line’ because they believe, with good reason, that something is not right.

 

Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has also publicly expressed grave concerns about the unprecedented restrictions on our liberty:

 

https://collateralglobal.org/article/a-conversation-with-lord-sumption

 

On the Isle of Man, advocate Ian Kermode has asked valid and well-informed questions of our director of public health, reflecting the grave concerns listed in the links above. One of his questions asks:

 

“In such circumstances would the more prudent clinical advice be to err on the side of caution and not recommend Covid vaccines to those planning to have children?”

 

It is difficult to see how any reasonable person, let alone a medical professional, even more so a director of public health, could answer ‘no’ to such a question. Dismissing Mr Kermodes’ letter - which reflects the feelings and concerns of thousands of people on the island - as ‘nonsense’, as a previous contributor has, shows little understanding of the issues.

 

The government and health departments’ proposal to now vaccinate children with a vaccine that remains in its’ experimental stage is not only gravely concerning, but also deeply suspect.

 

The first obligation of doctors is “Do no harm”. All modern medicine carries some risk so it is the role of trials and testing to minimise that risk. Since none of the covid vaccines have completed their clinical trial phase no medical professional can say with a clear conscience that they will be doing no, or least, harm by administering them. Those that do so are potentially putting their patients at risk.

 

Some on this forum have expressed concerns about the approach Courtenay Heading has taken. Whilst it may be true that Mr Heading may not always present in the calmest or reasonable manner he is extremely well informed on the subject of vaccine harms. He enjoys considerable support from a wide range of island-based residents, including well-qualified professionals and established business people - not all of them ‘feeble minded’. This support will inevitably lead to legal action - not only in the 'fantasy common law court’. Those deemed culpable of not adhereing to their professional or political responsibilities are likely to pay a high price.

 

Over 90% of those who have died from issues relating to covid are elderly - 50% of these have been in institutional environments. Broadly speaking, children are not at risk from covid 19. Given all of the valid concerns around this vaccination program, would not the logical step be a moratorium of the vaccination of children until more data is gathered?

[TheTeapot]

14 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 

 

On the Isle of Man, advocate Ian Kermode has asked valid and well-informed questions of our director of public health, reflecting the grave concerns listed in the links above. One of his questions asks:

 

“In such circumstances would the more prudent clinical advice be to err on the side of caution and not recommend Covid vaccines to those planning to have children?”

 

It is difficult to see how any reasonable person, let alone a medical professional, even more so a director of public health, could answer ‘no’ to such a question. Dismissing Mr Kermodes’ letter - which reflects the feelings and concerns of thousands of people on the island - as ‘nonsense’, as a previous contributor has, shows little understanding of the issues.

 

 

Do you have a copy of this letter? I have lost the link. As its me who dismissed it as nonsense it would be good if you could post it up again, I'd like to reassess. 

[ricardo]

 

[ricardo]

The 26 pages of Ian Kermode's letter seems too large for an attachment - I'm sure others will be able to oblige. The points Mr Kermode raises are also reflected by those in other links above though. He is far from alone.

For clarity, the 'high price' I refer to will be paid in professional, legal and financial standing, for any deemed culpable - by the courts - of causing harms. As applies to any of us.

[TheTeapot]

7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The 26 pages of Ian Kermode's letter seems too large for an attachment - I'm sure others will be able to oblige. The points Mr Kermode raises are also reflected by those in other links above though. He is far from alone.

For clarity, the 'high price' I refer to will be paid in professional, legal and financial standing, for any deemed culpable - by the courts - of causing harms. As applies to any of us.

Out of interest, would there be any degree of evidence that would convince you to take a covid vaccine? What's the level of commitment you have here? 

[TheTeapot]

Do you have an open mind?

[Chinahand]

4 hours ago, Danoo said:

Listen if you want to try and look smart then continue with your pseudo-scientific expertise. If the CDC, after assessing all the data and science available, have come to the conclusion that viral load from Delta infection is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated and has suggested an increased risk of transmission due to the high viral loads (and were also concerned enough to change their recommendations and put out a press release to that effect), then I'll listen to them over some bloke on the internet. 

Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC 

You do get that this is in people who have caught it. 

The vaccinated are less likely to catch it in the first place. 

If you vaccinate fewer people catch it and of those a smaller proportion become seriously ill. 

Yes, the smaller number of people have similar viral loads but in a vaccinated community fewer people will become infected by this viral load. 

After 6 months, Vaccination reduces likelihood of infection by 2/3 to 3/4 and risk of hospitalisation and death by a similar ratio compared to the unvaccinated. Hence the double success: fewer people catch it and fewer of those get seriously ill. 

The fact that infected people in both unvaccinated and vaccinated groups have similar viral loads isn't really the issue. 

The fact fewer people carry a viral load and the viral load causes less harm is what is important. 

[monasqueen]

Another news item seen today -

"Being double-jabbed almost halves the likelihood of long Covid in adults who get coronavirus, a new study has suggested.

Researchers at King’s College London also said that being admitted to hospital with the virus was 73% less likely, and the chances of severe symptoms were reduced by almost a third (31%) in the fully vaccinated."

"The lead researcher, Dr Claire Steves, also from King’s College, said the good news was that being double jabbed “significantly reduces the risk of both catching the virus and, if you do, [of] developing long-standing symptoms”."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chances-long-covid-almost-halved-223000515.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

[ricardo]

Hi Teapot

 

We all know that coming to any issue with a closed mind is ‘dogma’ - I hope that is not where I am coming from. In common with most so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’ I am not ‘anti-vax’ - like them I have had most of the ‘normal’ ones. These have been around for a long time so are well tried and tested. Those of us that choose to take them do so from a place of awareness of the - low - risks. This is not the case with the hastily produced covid vaccines, which is largely why there is so much resistance to them.

 

Some people here have suggested that the resources directed towards producing the vaccines resulted in speeding-up the process - this is not true. Clinical trials takes years because it is only after lengthy periods of time one is able to establish what the side effects actually are. Resources cannot speed that process. Others are better placed than me to comment though - in the interview below Dr Tess Lawrie talks knowledgeably about the issues. It is difficult to fault what she is saying:

 

https://www.oraclefilms.com/tesslawrie

 

In his hugely popular podcast, Joe Rogan is scrupulous about fairness and facts. In the link below he talks with comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore (who has been 'double vaxxed’) about some of the issues - again it is hard to fault what they are saying:

 

 

My interest is not in debate - it is in encouraging any of those thinking of getting their children vaccinated to do a bit of research into possible negative outcomes.