3 ms·

Here are some reasons I think this is a very bad idea: 1. The risk/benefit analysis for people under 40 is not as clear as is claimed. "Clot risk to 18-39s fro

Here are some reasons I think this is a very bad idea: 1. The risk/benefit analysis for people under 40 is not as clear as is claimed. "Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds" [0]. That's just clots; not myocarditis, or pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness, Bell's palsy, missing periods, and more. Yes, there are some young people who have died with Corona - the vast majority of them had comorbidities. 2. This goes against human rights. Many civil liberties and privacy groups are against "vaccine passports", including the WHO special envoy on COVID-19. If you're response to that is "well I had to take a shot to go to France", well, that's not quite the same as using a train, or keeping your job and career. 3. "But the herd immunity" - No. Herd immunity is not realistically possible with these leaky vaccines. That's even ignoring animal reservoirs and variants; such as could come from deer, mice, rats, cats, dogs, ferrets, mink, monkeys etc - all of which have been shown to be capable of catching Corona and spreading it among themselves. 4. In the past hundred years there are countless examples of governments and pharmaceutical companies performing horrific acts, and covering them up. This goes double for the poor and minorities. Can you really blame native people in Canada for distrusting government? 5. The same mistrust can be understandably applied to the mainstream media who sell us more war, anxiety, fear and distrust every year. Mandating, or "soft" mandating vaccines will mostly achieve riots. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are heavily invested in tear-gas and riot gear manufacturers. 6. These vaccines are for-profit, yet were provided on condition of full legal indemnity. How can it inspire confidence in people to claim a vaccine is so safe that it can be mandated, while at the same time saying that absolutely no responsibility for any symptom or side-effect whatsoever will be taken by the manufacturers? Pick one! These companies have already made tens of billions of dollars, using research that has taxpayer money behind it on multiple levels. 7. These vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Yes, they have been studied for many years, but also, there is no long term data. The side effects which we know of are poorly understood, i.e., GBS and CFS. 8. Many governments seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", and "soft" mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Making good use of subsidised antigen tests, or implementing effective, privacy sensitive contact tracing, seem even lower on the agenda. I don't know how many ICU beds or nurses Canada has hired, or how they are testing, but I suspect there are the same shortcomings there as elsewhere. That's not just bad policy, and bad health management, it's eyebrow raising. 9. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon. Cures and treatments could be coming too. Burning people's career for standing up for their right to determine what concoction is shot directly into their blood right now seems short sighted at best. [0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html * * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...

ithkuil 5y ago
I'm also personally very unhappy about mandatory vaccination or excessive pressure, but from a different angle: I'm worried that by doing so governments are basically fueling a resistance whose root cause is based on basic sacrosanct human principles such as freedom, dignity, independence, etc, but if human psychology is such that if you're making a stand you also have to provide additional reasons, just to prove that you're still rational. I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc > * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1 https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1... From the linked article: "Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines." From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely. If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid. On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself. And the comparison has to be fair! Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited! A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back). However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it. Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric. I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies. Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics. But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through. I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already. If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.

ithkuil 5y ago

I'm also personally very unhappy about mandatory vaccination or excessive pressure, but from a different angle: I'm worried that by doing so governments are basically fueling a resistance whose root cause is based on basic sacrosanct human principles such as freedom, dignity, independence, etc, but if human psychology is such that if you're making a stand you also have to provide additional reasons, just to prove that you're still rational. I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc > * Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1 https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1... From the linked article: "Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines." From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely. If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid. On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself. And the comparison has to be fair! Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited! A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back). However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it. Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric. I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies. Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics. But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through. I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already. If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.