Where have all the anti-vaxxers gone?

[C R]

We do need facepalm and head banging on the wall reaction emojis.

 

[Johnno260]

So you picked big pharma, ok go and check and see if you can find say a car manufacturer that lied about statistics and fixed their vehicles to dupe MOT tests... so don't buy or use a car as some have lied?

You say people have told you they have higher blood pressure now, so there are no other external pressures that could cause stress and high blood pressure like a global pandemic? and other pressures related to the current situation.

Any medication has a risk, the fact is these are actually worth the risk, you have a far greater risk of clots, cardiovascular damage etc than you risk from the vaccine.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
OK, this Thread is being Locked while the Mods Delete a whole heap of OT posts.

It might Unlock if you all promise to behave and keep to the topic – not wandering off into conspiracy/truth/anti-government/deliberate Chinese release stuff.

 

[Speicher]

This thread is now unlocked. As @Scoosh says please keep to the topic.

 

[Fat Lars]

I have been vaccinated twice (AstraZeneca) and had the booster (Pfizer), and believe that everyone should get vaccinated.

On the other hand the situation with Pfizer is that they have been prevaricating on releasing their data from a freedom of information request, so much so that the trickle of documents would at their pace of release take 70 years. A judge in the USA Texas Fort Worth on the 6th January ordered Pfizer to release the first 12000 pages by the 31st January and thereafter 55000 pages every 30 days the first due by date of 1st March 2022, (possible heavily redacted citing privilege, exemption or exclusion).
I have a problem with understanding what numbers really mean so I investigated a bit. You would think that with an efficacy of 90% that if 100 people get the virus then 10% won't get sick. Errr No.
(apologies if this has been covered earlier in the thread)
The Pfizer data is from 43444 participants, half controlled (placebo) and the other half (intervention)
Of - 21769 there were 9 cases of sick patients (intervention), Case rate 0.04%
Of - 21769 there were 85 cases of sick patients (placebo), Case rate 0.39%
The figure of 90% efficacy is calculated as the difference between the cases i.e., 85 minus 9 divided by 85 = 90%.
The number of people needed to treat (NNT) is in this case is calculated as the absolute difference between these two numbers is 0.39% minus 0.04% = 0.35%. The NNT is calculated as 100 divided by the absolute difference. In this example that is 100 divided by 0.35% = 286. At the time of the first Pfizer press release, it was known that 286 people would need to be treated for 1 person to avoid being a Covid-19 case.

If you take into account those people who suffered reactions and became ill then this will impact on the figures adversely. Therefore I fully respect the right of an individual to refuse to take the jab. Especially with the Omicron variant and if they are not in a vulnerable group. The chances of getting sick are very very slim.

You can see why excessive administrative secrecy feeds conspiracy theories and reduces public confidence. On the other hand It should also be remembered that at the beginning of the pandemic the bar was just 50% efficacy required by the FDA.

 

[mjr]

A local councillor has just posted an image claiming to be "Allison Coleman, aged 7" and called it a "tragedy". While they didn't mention it, searching for the name online finds similar images from anti-vaxxers claiming that the girl has died after being given the Pfizer vaccine in Australia. No reputable news service has confirmed it and even some dodgy news sites are reporting it while saying they cannot confirm it, which seems rather unusual.

I asked the councillor how they verified it before reposting and they asked more or less "verified what". So I asked how they'd verified the age and name matched the photo and was met with more evasion, saying that no-one had denied it so now I've asked if they can find any denial that they themselves have died as a result of the Pfizer vaccine ... but this feels like another one lost down the rabbit hole, which is a shame because I thought they were a good councillor, but this shakes my faith in their ability to evaluate evidence logically. Does anyone have any tips for bringing them back to reality?

Edit to add: Oh and at least one scammer is enthusiastically promoting Rob Malone in the comments on the post and pictures of scrunched-up leaflets with some of the most incorrect and misleading claims about vaccination that I've seen yet. It says mRNA vaccines had never been used before, so I guess everyone imagined the 2017 rabies vaccine and 2019 flu one, or maybe the Big Pharma Conspiracy has been frantically making news articles and journal papers about them that look like they were published in the past.

 

[Johnno260]

I asked the councillor how they verified it before reposting and they asked more or less "verified what". So I asked how they'd verified the age and name matched the photo and was met with more evasion, saying that no-one had denied it so now I've asked if they can find any denial that they themselves have died as a result of the Pfizer vaccine ... but this feels like another one lost down the rabbit hole, which is a shame because I thought they were a good councillor, but this shakes my faith in their ability to evaluate evidence logically. Does anyone have any tips for bringing them back to reality?

I have found no method that works, I have my uncle and 3 friends now all believing what conmen pedal as the truth, using facts or data doesn't work as all I get back is it's false data even if it's a solid source, or I get the experts are all indoctrinated and only the anti vax doctors have the truth... either getting mad with them, or using facts just seems to push them down the anti vax rabbit hole further.

I suppose hope they end up seeing these liars and conmen for what they are at some point on their own terms is the only way.

Fact is if you dig, there are always usually dubious things in said anti vax doctors past, Robert Malone as you mentioned has flat out lied on occasion, he spent months slamming the current batch of vaccines for it to become apparent he is working with Indian pharma to produce a vaccine.

And the guy who was held up in high esteem earlier for speaking the the health sec, has a £500 an hour private clinic for breathing issues, so again follow the money.

Edit: Sorry I brought my mother back from the brink of going full anti vax, my aunt and uncle got their hooks into her and I was able to talk sense into her, it was easier as they had used some really quite bad lies, like the vaccine was full or mercury and graphene oxide.

 

[Alex321]

I have been vaccinated twice (AstraZeneca) and had the booster (Pfizer), and believe that everyone should get vaccinated.

On the other hand the situation with Pfizer is that they have been prevaricating on releasing their data from a freedom of information request, so much so that the trickle of documents would at their pace of release take 70 years. A judge in the USA Texas Fort Worth on the 6th January ordered Pfizer to release the first 12000 pages by the 31st January and thereafter 55000 pages every 30 days the first due by date of 1st March 2022, (possible heavily redacted citing privilege, exemption or exclusion).
I have a problem with understanding what numbers really mean so I investigated a bit. You would think that with an efficacy of 90% that if 100 people get the virus then 10% won't get sick. Errr No.
(apologies if this has been covered earlier in the thread)
The Pfizer data is from 43444 participants, half controlled (placebo) and the other half (intervention)
Of - 21769 there were 9 cases of sick patients (intervention), Case rate 0.04%
Of - 21769 there were 85 cases of sick patients (placebo), Case rate 0.39%
The figure of 90% efficacy is calculated as the difference between the cases i.e., 85 minus 9 divided by 85 = 90%.

Which makes complete sense. Of those who would have caught the disease, only 10% do so.

The number of people needed to treat (NNT) is in this case is calculated as the absolute difference between these two numbers is 0.39% minus 0.04% = 0.35%. The NNT is calculated as 100 divided by the absolute difference. In this example that is 100 divided by 0.35% = 286. At the time of the first Pfizer press release, it was known that 286 people would need to be treated for 1 person to avoid being a Covid-19 case.

This makes little sense in terms of useful information.

That number is only so high because the base rate of infection during the study period was so low.

Here "treated" means "given either the placebo or vaccine", so effectively means "exist in the population".

And of course assuming the placebo infection rate is the true current infection rate. That has varied considerably through the different variants.

So basically it is saying that for every 286 people vaccinated, one person who would have caught the disease during that period will not do so.

But for every 286 people not vaccinated only about 1.1 people would get infected during that same period.

If you take into account those people who suffered reactions and became ill then this will impact on the figures adversely. Therefore I fully respect the right of an individual to refuse to take the jab. Especially with the Omicron variant and if they are not in a vulnerable group. The chances of getting sick are very very slim.

While I do respect the right of individuals to refuse, you do have to remember that from the POV of society the vaccines are not mainly about protecting you as an individual. Getting mass uptake is mainly about reducing the overall number of people needing medical intervention, and thus reducing the pressure on the health service.

You can see why excessive administrative secrecy feeds conspiracy theories and reduces public confidence. On the other hand It should also be remembered that at the beginning of the pandemic the bar was just 50% efficacy required by the FDA.

Absolutely you can. Secrecy is what feeds conspiracy theories, even when there hasn't really been any. As soon as you get any actual secrecy, that is meat & drink to them.

 

[Arrowfoot]

It's the other way around. Claims of secrecy, authorities not being transparent, missing data is the bread and butter of conspiracy theories. They will outright dismiss published data from highly regarded and well respected sources and continue to claim true data has not been released.

You don't have to go far, you will see these claims in this thread.

 

[farfromtheland]

Here "treated" means "given either the placebo or vaccine", so effectively means "exist in the population".

And of course assuming the placebo infection rate is the true current infection rate. That has varied considerably through the different variants.

Yes - As I read the summary, 'treated' meant the whole population of the study, half of whom were given the vaccine and half a placebo, and No - which means there was no untreated 'control group' as such.

And it is frustrating that too many social media posts mean it's so hard to find good research.

 

[Johnno260]

It's the other way around. Claims of secrecy, authorities not being transparent, missing data is the bread and butter of conspiracy theories. They will outright dismiss published data from highly regarded and well respected sources and continue to claim true data has not been released.

You don't have to go far, you will see these claims in this thread.

My uncle will twist ONS data to say something entirely different, when it's explained to him and his errors corrected he will then say it's all false anyway.

Or he quote mines something from an article and again when the correct context is applied he throws it out, it's a very high level of dishonesty for sure, I then get called every name under the sun, and asked if my will and guardianship details for my kids is up to date, it's always totally toxic with him, no matter how cordial I keep things on my end.

He is also supporting things like the Alpha Men Assemble group as the time for talking is over...

 

[KnittyNorah]

It's the other way around. Claims of secrecy, authorities not being transparent, missing data is the bread and butter of conspiracy theories. They will outright dismiss published data from highly regarded and well respected sources and continue to claim true data has not been released.

You don't have to go far, you will see these claims in this thread.

Yes, THIS.
'They' are keeping the 'TROOFAX' away from 'you' - and if you say calmly, 'no they're not, I can show you ...' you are literally screamed at, told to do 'your own research like I did' and walked away from.

Of course their idea of 'research' is reading innumerable crank websites and watching hours of weird you-tube videos ... catch them doing any actual genuine research - be it hard-grind number-collection-and-crunching or thankless monotonous repetitive lab work - now that's the most unlikely thing imaginable, they have neither the skills nor the fortitude and just want to be entertained by a snake-oil salesman who will manage to convince them that 2+2 = twenty four and three quarters ...

 

[Fat Lars]

I'm sensing that the simple broad brush messages for getting the population fully vaccinated are slowly reducing now the Omicron Covid19 is taking over from Delta as the main variant. The NHS staff are still under threat of a loss of deployment or the sack if they are not vaccinated by April. IMO this will be dropped as there are as many as 10% unvaxxed and the NHS cannot afford to lose that number of staff. I don't agree that to force them to face the loss of their job or having a jab is the government's finest hour.
If a doctor or nurse in ICU consciously chooses to lose their job I have to assume that they of all the professions must have weighed up the risk versus benefits carefully and are not a victim of ridiculous scare stories. As individuals they can see first hand the risk profile of very sick and dying patients in ICU. OK 70% are unvaccinated but they are also elderly, obese, and have co morbidities. And the vaccinated in ICU are elderly, obese and have co morbidities. There are risks in taking the vaccine even if very low. If you are a doctor that has had covid that was asymptomatic and have a high number of antibodies you are not at risk from the virus and less likely to catch it at all and pass it on.
Lets suppose that come April I am wrong and there are multiple sackings guess what? All they have to do is move to Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland as it only applies to NHS England.
BTW as I have previously declared I am very pro vaccine and have had 3 jabs. But I'm not sure about any more.

 

[mjr]

[...] if you say calmly, 'no they're not, I can show you ...' you are literally screamed at, told to do 'your own research like I did' and walked away from.

Yes, I literally had exactly the same phrase directed at me today. It appears to be a suggestion that if I use the same search terms as them on the same search engine then I will find the same spin and draw the same conclusions, which rather ignores that search engines show different things to different people at different times. Effectively, they learn who likes to be scammed and help to scam them, similar to how facebook's algorithm puts people into bubbles more and more.

 

[mjr]

[...]The NHS staff are still under threat of a loss of deployment or the sack if they are not vaccinated by April. IMO this will be dropped as there are as many as 10% unvaxxed and the NHS cannot afford to lose that number of staff.

I suspect you may be correct, but it's not a good outcome.

I don't agree that to force them to face the loss of their job or having a jab is the government's finest hour.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, they already face this with other vaccinations required for other jobs.

If a doctor or nurse in ICU consciously chooses to lose their job I have to assume that they of all the professions must have weighed up the risk versus benefits carefully and are not a victim of ridiculous scare stories.

I think you have put a "not" in there by mistake. If they choose to be fired instead of vaccinated, then they are a victim of the ridiculous scare stores about the vaccines.

As individuals they can see first hand the risk profile of very sick and dying patients in ICU. OK 70% are unvaccinated but they are also elderly, obese, and have co morbidities. And the vaccinated in ICU are elderly, obese and have co morbidities.

I am pretty sure you should put "and/or" there and it is suspected that one of the "comorbidities" may be a genetic factor which causes few other problems and hasn't been widely screened for: so how does anyone know they haven't got that?