4 ms·

Can you expand on why you were hesitant because of censorship? ... Have you heard rumors of some problems from vaccination? It made it more difficult to ascert

Can you expand on why you were hesitant because of censorship? ... Have you heard rumors of some problems from vaccination? It made it more difficult to ascertain what the risks were, I didn't feel our officials were being honest with us (something I still think). Back in early 2021 it was a lot more open to speculation since it was an minimally tested treatment who's delivery method had never been widely deployed on humans before. We still don't know if there's long term effects and there's no way for us to find out until enough time has passed. I didn't want to be part of the initial test group. Since covid is so deadly if you get it I'm relatively young and not in any risk categories, covid does not pose much of a death risk to me. Significant non-deadly outcomes are another story (permanent lung damage, loss of taste, ect). I decided that protection from the latter category (significant non-deadly outcomes) was worth my rather nebulous fears that we'll realize it does some harm over the next decade. and there are basically almost no cases of serious health issues with vaccination and furthermore "Basically almost no" is a difficult term to quantify, but VAERS database does have plenty of entries.

unanswered 5y ago
> Significant non-deadly outcomes are another story (permanent lung damage, loss of taste, ect) Is there credible, non-censorious evidence that the vaccine reduces these particular risks? This is the same argument that we keep seeing: you have to take this vaccine because ${thing that vaccines normally do but this one hasn't been shown to do}. The most egregious example is "provide immunity"/"improve outcomes for anyone around you". I just don't believe a word of it until I see the science.
- nneonneo 5y ago
  I don’t know what level of convincing you need, but here in BC, unvaccinated people are about 25x more likely to show up in a hospital than vaccinated people: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0058-001843 https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0058-001843 Over the past two weeks: > After factoring for age, people not vaccinated are 25.8 times more likely to be hospitalized than those fully vaccinated. (The age correction reflects the fact that vaccines aren’t distributed evenly by age).
  - unanswered 5y ago
    Sorry, I just don't believe these numbers. Even mainstream media sources have begun admitting that hospital admission rates are meaningless because they reflect mostly test results from hospital admissions for concerns other than covid symptoms. It is interesting that despite this the unvaccinated are showing up more, but because it is for example plausible that the unvaccinated are just plain leaving their homes more, I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers. I recognize that it's ridiculous to be in a situation where I'm rejecting facts; that's a great way to be led completely astray. But that's the world that censorship has created.
    - _moof 5y ago
      What will you believe?
      - unanswered 5y ago
        As I said, > I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers. Science is not done in the media. I'm tired of being told that I have to believe the science that's on TV when every single time I investigate it turns out the science says the exact opposite. The non-scientific "facts" in the media are even worse; take those overwhelmed hospitals in Oklahoma and the nationwide overwhelmed poison control centers, which were both bold-faced lies. (In case you've missed the non-retractions, Oklahoma hospitals denied having ivermectin patients and only 2% of calls to poison control had anything to do with covid.)
        CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You dodged the question of what you actually would believe. You were linked a government study, then said "science is not done in the media"
        unanswered 5y ago
        The only link I see in this thread is a government press release, not a scientific study. The first step is to be able to distinguish those.
spaceisballer 5y ago
The VAERS database wouldn’t be what I would use for measures. I mean I saw a guy faint like one minute after getting the shot. Side effect? Nope he even said while he was talking to paramedics he spent the whole day freaking out about side effects and then blacked out. Paramedics said they see this all the time, people are scared. However the technology for the vaccines has been around for a few years now and the vaccines all went through rigorous testing. We don’t know the long term adverse affects of COVID, but with the mechanism of the vaccine plus the insanely high number of people who have received them we should feel even more confident in their safety. I mean I get the hesitancy people have. But honestly a lot of people are making decisions based on emotion to not getting the shot, and I think a lot of it is that reason and facts can’t counter emotion (not saying you in particular just a general observation).
- silver-arrow 5y ago
  Yikes. Rigorous testing? Yet concerned about long term effects of covid itself? With lack of logic like this no wonder we have leaders exploiting the unvaccinated.

unanswered 5y ago

> Significant non-deadly outcomes are another story (permanent lung damage, loss of taste, ect) Is there credible, non-censorious evidence that the vaccine reduces these particular risks? This is the same argument that we keep seeing: you have to take this vaccine because ${thing that vaccines normally do but this one hasn't been shown to do}. The most egregious example is "provide immunity"/"improve outcomes for anyone around you". I just don't believe a word of it until I see the science.

nneonneo 5y ago
I don’t know what level of convincing you need, but here in BC, unvaccinated people are about 25x more likely to show up in a hospital than vaccinated people: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0058-001843 https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0058-001843 Over the past two weeks: > After factoring for age, people not vaccinated are 25.8 times more likely to be hospitalized than those fully vaccinated. (The age correction reflects the fact that vaccines aren’t distributed evenly by age).
- unanswered 5y ago
  Sorry, I just don't believe these numbers. Even mainstream media sources have begun admitting that hospital admission rates are meaningless because they reflect mostly test results from hospital admissions for concerns other than covid symptoms. It is interesting that despite this the unvaccinated are showing up more, but because it is for example plausible that the unvaccinated are just plain leaving their homes more, I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers. I recognize that it's ridiculous to be in a situation where I'm rejecting facts; that's a great way to be led completely astray. But that's the world that censorship has created.
  - _moof 5y ago
    What will you believe?
    - unanswered 5y ago
      As I said, > I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers. Science is not done in the media. I'm tired of being told that I have to believe the science that's on TV when every single time I investigate it turns out the science says the exact opposite. The non-scientific "facts" in the media are even worse; take those overwhelmed hospitals in Oklahoma and the nationwide overwhelmed poison control centers, which were both bold-faced lies. (In case you've missed the non-retractions, Oklahoma hospitals denied having ivermectin patients and only 2% of calls to poison control had anything to do with covid.)
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You dodged the question of what you actually would believe. You were linked a government study, then said "science is not done in the media"
        unanswered 5y ago
        The only link I see in this thread is a government press release, not a scientific study. The first step is to be able to distinguish those.

spaceisballer 5y ago

The VAERS database wouldn’t be what I would use for measures. I mean I saw a guy faint like one minute after getting the shot. Side effect? Nope he even said while he was talking to paramedics he spent the whole day freaking out about side effects and then blacked out. Paramedics said they see this all the time, people are scared. However the technology for the vaccines has been around for a few years now and the vaccines all went through rigorous testing. We don’t know the long term adverse affects of COVID, but with the mechanism of the vaccine plus the insanely high number of people who have received them we should feel even more confident in their safety. I mean I get the hesitancy people have. But honestly a lot of people are making decisions based on emotion to not getting the shot, and I think a lot of it is that reason and facts can’t counter emotion (not saying you in particular just a general observation).

silver-arrow 5y ago
Yikes. Rigorous testing? Yet concerned about long term effects of covid itself? With lack of logic like this no wonder we have leaders exploiting the unvaccinated.