CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

No you are asserting that, because it makes that argument easier to attack and much easier to paint me as a Pete Evans type.

I haven't associated you with Pete Evans, I just made a general comment about people like Evans, you decided I was implying it was about you, why are you paranoid?

I did asked you a simple question, not related to your decision about getting or refusing a vaccine. I asked what evidence could I provide that would convince you a vaccine was safe, and in effect you replied there is no evidence I could provide that would make you think a vaccine is safe. Not by saying that directly, but it doesn't change the meaning of your response, it's not an area you can work around and not related to or painting you as a Pete Evans. type, it's a simple question. You should even ask it of yourself!

I do not know what you are looking for, so it's a simple question from my perspective as well.

Why dont we simply keep our country COVID free for 2 years, and then get some meaningful data about what a covid vaccine means for the nations that have vaccinated, rather than become a guinea pig like the rest?

No, but the only confirmed cases I know of, are back to work, and generally symptom free aside from compromised senses of smell.

That is interesting terminology, a vaccine guinea pig, when you allow an infection isn't that an infection guinea pig?

Restriction is a romantic notion, we can't even keep the dissenters at bay for a few weeks and you want them constrained for 2 years, is that realistic or are you just taking the piss? The first-hand experiences in a town with a few thousand cases is a not indicative. Are those circus tents turn into massive morgues in the USA and UK fake news, just a conspiracy?

Are the numbers less accurate where there are more cases to study, or is your personal perspective a position of privilege? Why is it so important, how do you convince me you are right and "all the rest" are wrong?

Now that in itself is bad enough, but lets place that to the side for a moment.  Lets inject people with a vaccine that we are not even confident works, because the rest of the world says so?  What about our Nurse in portugal who got the jab in her early 40's and passed away within 48 hours?

https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/202...cine/57533

its ok, she didnt suffer any adverse reactions, and had no underlying health concerns.  Must have died of natural causes.

That story is as bad as those who choose to associate MMR with Down Syndrome, and a journalistic disgrace.

When you are vaccinating millions, there would be even more people that have died in the COVID vaccine waiting room, probably even more that died in a car accident on the way to the clinic, just the thought of the vaccine killed them it seems! :o

Not relevant, but nice try.

I would of thought risk is very relevant, doing nothing can hold as much risk as doing the wrong thing, as Trump demonstrated, what are they up to now in deaths?

If you can, ask your epidemiologist friend about human immune system accelerated viral mutation in the context of herd immunity and non-vaccination. I'd love to read a response.

[kruddler]

Lot of convincing to do to get healthcare workers on mass to take the jab,I'm pro vaccine 99.99% of the time but there just hasnt been enough testing to satisfy all the different areas of concern across the community.

Agree.

I am pro-vaccine. My wife works for CSL and somewhat indirectly helps vaccines get made.

BUT.....there is just something about this whole thing that feels like it could come back to bite us.

Everything has been rushed through. They are still working out what Covid is doing long term and they have no idea what the vaccine will do in similar.

Never get the 'new model' as soon as its out. Let people find the bugs in it and get the v2.0 which will be better off.

[capcom]

I've been following death trends by country from (virtually) day one.  I cannot think of any rational argument that, in any part, explains the massive US figures and fully expected India's path to follow suit.  For months it did and in the thousands every day.  Now?  Plummeted.

I mean, WTF?

[ElwoodBlues1]

Agree.

I am pro-vaccine. My wife works for CSL and somewhat indirectly helps vaccines get made.

BUT.....there is just something about this whole thing that feels like it could come back to bite us.

Everything has been rushed through. They are still working out what Covid is doing long term and they have no idea what the vaccine will do in similar.

Never get the 'new model' as soon as its out. Let people find the bugs in it and get the v2.0 which will be better off.

I have a daughter who is a RN and family members who are paramedics, none want the vaccine and none of their friends do either.
My son is getting married in April and his wife to be wants to start a family but the info on CoVid vaccine effects on pregnancies/newborns is zero.
Agree on the " new model theory" and in fact even Version 2 might be a gamble given the average time to produce an effective and safe vaccine for most other conditions is ten years. I do get we need it now and its been fast tracked but you cant tell me every scenario in the community has been fully tested.

[Gointocarlton]

I have a daughter who is a RN and family members who are paramedics, none want the vaccine and none of their friends do either.
My son is getting married in April and his wife to be wants to start a family but the info on CoVid vaccine effects on pregnancies/newborns is zero.
Agree on the " new model theory" and in fact even Version 2 might be a gamble given the average time to produce an effective and safe vaccine for most other conditions is ten years. I do get we need it now and its been fast tracked but you cant tell me every scenario in the community has been fully tested.

Im the complete opposite EB, I have every faith in the vaccine and whilst rushed, its a different rushed. The collaboration and sharing of info around the globe by the best scientists on the planet has been like never before. I am told the the number of people used for clinical trials is many times more than the number for normal clinical trials and much more data has been available. Each to their own though, I would happily have the vaccine.

[Thryleon]

I haven't associated you with Pete Evans, I just made a general comment about people like Evans, you decided I was implying it was about you, why are you paranoid?

I did asked you a simple question, not related to your decision about getting or refusing a vaccine. I asked what evidence could I provide that would convince you a vaccine was safe, and in effect you replied there is no evidence I could provide that would make you think a vaccine is safe. Not by saying that directly, but it doesn't change the meaning of your response, it's not an area you can work around and not related to or painting you as a Pete Evans. type, it's a simple question. You should even ask it of yourself!

I do not know what you are looking for, so it's a simple question from my perspective as well.
That is interesting terminology, a vaccine guinea pig, when you allow an infection isn't that an infection guinea pig?

Restriction is a romantic notion, we can't even keep the dissenters at bay for a few weeks and you want them constrained for 2 years, is that realistic or are you just taking the piss? The first-hand experiences in a town with a few thousand cases is a not indicative. Are those circus tents turn into massive morgues in the USA and UK fake news, just a conspiracy?

Are the numbers less accurate where there are more cases to study, or is your personal perspective a position of privilege? Why is it so important, how do you convince me you are right and "all the rest" are wrong?
That story is as bad as those who choose to associate MMR with Down Syndrome, and a journalistic disgrace.

When you are vaccinating millions, there would be even more people that have died in the COVID vaccine waiting room, probably even more that died in a car accident on the way to the clinic, just the thought of the vaccine killed them it seems! :o
I would of thought risk is very relevant, doing nothing can hold as much risk as doing the wrong thing, as Trump demonstrated, what are they up to now in deaths?

If you can, ask your epidemiologist friend about human immune system accelerated viral mutation in the context of herd immunity and non-vaccination. I'd love to read a response.

Yeah nah, I've stated my point.  Its backed up by quite a few others.  Feel free to come to my work and have my vaccine for me.  They won't know its not me with the mask on and my id with no photo.

[LP]

Yeah nah, I've stated my point.  Its backed up by quite a few others.  Feel free to come to my work and have my vaccine for me.  They won't know its not me with the mask on and my id with no photo.

I fell your uncomfortable answering the question about what might be an acceptable level of evidence.

It's a question designed by Sir Karl Popper to make an debate opponent ponder their own position, especially when an opponent argues they have a position based on evidence without providing evidence. Obviously, when offering a position based on evidence there must be some way to list it, and if evidence sways an opinion there must be some threshold at which further evidence changes that opinion.

Stating more evidence is not evidence at all!

I don't require the answer, it isn't needed, the question is designed to leave you and other observers of the debate pondering what might be viable evidence.

PS; I do not think the poor journalism reporting coincident deaths with vaccinations is backed up by anyone with credibility, as it's an absurdity as I demonstrated in my answer.

[Thryleon]

I fell your uncomfortable answering the question about what might be an acceptable level of evidence.

It's a question designed by Sir Karl Popper to make an debate opponent ponder their own position, especially when an opponent argues they have a position based on evidence without providing evidence. Obviously, when offering a position based on evidence there must be some way to list it, and if evidence sways an opinion there must be some threshold at which further evidence changes that opinion.

Stating more evidence is not evidence at all!

I don't require the answer, it isn't needed, the question is designed to leave you and other observers of the debate pondering what might be viable evidence.

PS; I do not think the poor journalism reporting coincident deaths with vaccinations is backed up by anyone with credibility, as it's an absurdity as I demonstrated in my answer.

Not really, but choose to believe what makes you feel better.  This post sums up my position farely well and its an opinion shared by many who are in the direct firing line for early uptake:

Agree.

I am pro-vaccine. My wife works for CSL and somewhat indirectly helps vaccines get made.

BUT.....there is just something about this whole thing that feels like it could come back to bite us.

Everything has been rushed through. They are still working out what Covid is doing long term and they have no idea what the vaccine will do in similar.

Never get the 'new model' as soon as its out. Let people find the bugs in it and get the v2.0 which will be better off.

The advantage we have of maintaining our covid status quo for a period of time that should start seeing any real adverse results is very logical, and absolutely the path we SHOULD be taking as a nation for our own nations safety.

Instead, you are advocating a rushed vaccine to get us open quicker for the benefit of the exact people you lambast for being skeptical about lockdowns (i.e. big businesses).

Once again, look at the bigger picture, its not about a virus anymore nor is it about personal safety.  Else we would see this debate playing out much more publically and not in the halls of parliament house between the likes of Craig Kelly and co.

[LP]

Not really, but choose to believe what makes you feel better.  This post sums up my position farely well and its an opinion shared by many who are in the direct firing line for early uptake:

The highlighted term is your problem, I'm asking you about what type of evidence you accept, and you deliver an opinion supported by another opinion.

It's not that hard to understand the difference.

The advantage we have of maintaining our covid status quo for a period of time that should start seeing any real adverse results is very logical, and absolutely the path we SHOULD be taking as a nation for our own nations safety.

You keep talking about advantages of your opinion without listing the risks, it's not balanced.

Instead, you are advocating a rushed vaccine to get us open quicker for the benefit of the exact people you lambast for being skeptical about lockdowns (i.e. big businesses).

You can't conduct this argument with gross generalisations, entities like Murdoch Media or the GOP are not the NIH, CDC, NHS, etc., etc..[/quote]

Once again, look at the bigger picture, its not about a virus anymore nor is it about personal safety.  Else we would see this debate playing out much more publicly and not in the halls of parliament house between the likes of Craig Kelly and co.

I think you confuse the social media opinion and news media opinion with science and research, the bulk of the studies reporting the numbers are not conducted by the companies making the vaccines and certainly not conducted by the political parties. There is not a single scientific report that suggest the vaccine is dangerous, and millions and millions of people have been inoculated already, yet that doesn't seem to be enough evidence, and the long terms effects of COVID potentially being avoided by that inoculation isn't evidence either.

Then what is the evidence you need Thry, it's a simple question?

What you have written suggests you have created a relationship that doesn't really exist, both in analysis of the commentary and subjectively in reading of this debate.

Evidence gazumps opinion, opinions like those offered by Murdoch, GOP, Kelly, Evans, and that horrendously appalling Portugeuse COVID vaccine death correlation quoted in an earlier response.

[Thryleon]

The highlighted term is your problem, I'm asking you about what type of evidence you accept, and you deliver an opinion supported by another opinion.

It's not that hard to understand the difference.
You keep talking about advantages of your opinion without listing the risks, it's not balanced.
You can't conduct this argument with gross generalisations, entities like Murdoch Media or the GOP are not the NIH, CDC, NHS, etc., etc..
I think you confuse the social media opinion and news media opinion with science and research, the bulk of the studies reporting the numbers are not conducted by the companies making the vaccines and certainly not conducted by the political parties. There is not a single scientific report that suggest the vaccine is dangerous, and millions and millions of people have been inoculated already, yet that doesn't seem to be enough evidence, and the long terms effects of COVID potentially being avoided by that inoculation isn't evidence either.

Then what is the evidence you need Thry, it's a simple question?

What you have written suggests you have created a relationship that doesn't really exist, both in analysis of the commentary and subjectively in reading of this debate.

Evidence gazumps opinion, opinions like those offered by Murdoch, GOP, Kelly, Evans, and that horrendously appalling Portugeuse COVID vaccine death correlation quoted in an earlier response.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

The end.

LP give it a rest, you are welcome to your opinion, dont attack mine asserting a position of dominance.  its bullshit.