6 ms·

The problem with this claim is that vaccine fanatics spread vast amounts of misinformation themselves, and often rely on it for their core arguments. Just in t

The problem with this claim is that vaccine fanatics spread vast amounts of misinformation themselves, and often rely on it for their core arguments. Just in this thread alone, we can find people saying: 1. Vaccines would let us wipe out COVID (wrong). 2. Even harsher lockdowns would let us wipe out COVID (wrong). 3. Vaccines stop people transmitting it (wrong). 4. Vaccinated people don't end up in ICU with COVID (wrong). 5. Sweden had unusually bad outcomes (wrong). 6. That it's "very normal" for people to take yearly flu shots (wrong, only ~35% uptake amongst at risk patients in 2019). And that's not even a full list. There's not only a large set of factually incorrect beliefs amongst vaccine mandate fanatics (and that's the only word for you guys now), but also a generalized incorrect belief that it's the other side who are badly informed.

switch007 5y ago
Excellent list!
Krasnol 5y ago
I fail to see your point. On the other side we have anti-vaxxers here too. Who's more harmful? While most of those points you made here are just overblown generalisations (and probably not even stated in this fashion), none of them are completely wrong. On the anti-vaxxer side we have claims which are not only completely wrong, people literally die because they or others around them believe in them. So again: what's your point?
- EricE 5y ago
  If you are vaccinated how is an unvaccinated person a threat to you? Seriously - how?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SamTwardowski 5y ago
    Spiritually, you represent threat. I am holy and those around me must be holy as well.
  - m4rtink 5y ago
    By causing hospitals to be overloaded so I or people close to me can't be treated in an emergency? Not to mention all the hospital personnel having one more wave of hell to endure. By giving, possibly repeatedly so much viral lead to old people I know that they might end up in a hospital even when fully vaccinated? By being essentially a petri dish for creating new harmful variants?
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      The only potentially valid point here is hospital overload. Everything else you listed applies to the vaccinated as well. Let's start by agreeing that hospital overload is definitely a bad thing. Vaccination should help reduce the load, but has anything else been done? Hasn't staff in hospitals decreased over the course of the pandemic? Aren't we funneling tons of money to pharma instead of Frontline workers? What about setting up field hospitals? What about altering the priority access to emergency health care of the unvaccinated? Hospital overload has been a liminal crisis for the past 2 years, but has yet to materialize as a real issue. Have we just been getting lucky? narrowly avoiding disaster each wave? Because this is almost starting to look like a boogeyman that pops up on a regular basis that reminds us that we need to live in fear.
      - Krasnol 5y ago
        > Vaccination should help reduce the load, but has anything else been done? Hasn't staff in hospitals decreased over the course of the pandemic? Aren't we funneling tons of money to pharma People can go and get a jab. This is easy. Can be done in minutes. No harm done. You can't build a hospital like that or get personal cloned from some pool of educated personal. Even if we'd have started 2 years ago. Wtf do you want with a field hospital? Those people don't need bandages...what are you talking about?? I know this smokescreen it just came up all over the anti-vaxxer scene. It's a hilarious attempt to cloud their own responsibility and divert the anger away from them. It won't work because it's so cheap and stupid. Especially coming from people who refuse to accept the easiest and fastest solution. And NO, hospital overload is the only valid point. By spreading and keeping the pandemic running you also ruin peoples lifes economically. People who depend on crowds coming to their store for example or doing sports with them. Than there is long COVID... Man...this topic is not new. All those ways this is harmful has been presented in the media over the last years. How can you still be so ignoran December 2021????
ryan_lane 5y ago
You're taking extreme talking points on this and making it seem like it's the norm. Vaccines don't stop being from transmitting, but it reduces the length of infection by about 2 days, it drastically reduces the likelihood of infection, which drastically reduces the transmission rate, and recent studies have shown that it does also reduce the likelihood of transmission directly. Vaccinated people with breakthrough cases may end up in the ICU, but the rate of hospitalization, admittance to the ICU, and cases of death are considerably lower than those who haven't been vaccinated. Using the extreme example, and pointing out that each argument is wrong, rather than extreme, while not discussing the facts is just another form of misinformation.
- native_samples 5y ago
  It would be nice if they're extreme talking points, but these are routinely presented by the media and public health agencies. For example up until very recently claim (4) was being made in Germany, and claim (3) is basically the claim underlying any implementation of vaccine passports - of course, we may suspect they are in reality merely means of extra-judicial punishment, but governments officially deny it. Regardless, whilst these claims are "extreme" in the sense of being phrased in absolutes, they aren't "extreme" in the sense of being rarely believed, are they? Not only do they crop up all over this thread but in the very article the thread is about, Angelas Merkel, not exactly famous for being the Queen of Extreme, says "The fourth wave must be broken and this has not yet been achieved" which is simply another way of saying (3) and strongly alluding to (1) and (2). Also: "it drastically reduces the likelihood of infection, which drastically reduces the transmission rate, and recent studies have shown that it does also reduce the likelihood of transmission directly" Let's break this down: 1. Infection rates. Health agencies claim it reduces the likelihood of infection, and at first it genuinely seems to, but the only one that is willing to show the actual raw data before they wildly alter it using statistical techniques, is the UK HSA. Their data shows that by now the rate amongst vaccinated people is actually a lot higher than among the unvaccinated for some large age groups! This sounds like it should be impossible, but it turns out to have been observed in pre-COVID times with other vaccines. They have been reduced to claiming that comparing case rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people isn't a valid way to determine if the vaccine works, due to vague behavioural differences that they speculate must exist but have no proof for. 2. Rate of transmission. Not for the first time, we find that epidemiological studies aren't worth much. Can you cite yours, so we can see when it was written? Because once again UK data contradicts it (or it does now at least): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... "In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated)." No real difference in transmission at all. Actually slightly higher for vaccinated people but let's assume that's not really significant.

switch007 5y ago

Excellent list!

Krasnol 5y ago

I fail to see your point. On the other side we have anti-vaxxers here too. Who's more harmful? While most of those points you made here are just overblown generalisations (and probably not even stated in this fashion), none of them are completely wrong. On the anti-vaxxer side we have claims which are not only completely wrong, people literally die because they or others around them believe in them. So again: what's your point?

EricE 5y ago
If you are vaccinated how is an unvaccinated person a threat to you? Seriously - how?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SamTwardowski 5y ago
  Spiritually, you represent threat. I am holy and those around me must be holy as well.
- m4rtink 5y ago
  By causing hospitals to be overloaded so I or people close to me can't be treated in an emergency? Not to mention all the hospital personnel having one more wave of hell to endure. By giving, possibly repeatedly so much viral lead to old people I know that they might end up in a hospital even when fully vaccinated? By being essentially a petri dish for creating new harmful variants?
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    The only potentially valid point here is hospital overload. Everything else you listed applies to the vaccinated as well. Let's start by agreeing that hospital overload is definitely a bad thing. Vaccination should help reduce the load, but has anything else been done? Hasn't staff in hospitals decreased over the course of the pandemic? Aren't we funneling tons of money to pharma instead of Frontline workers? What about setting up field hospitals? What about altering the priority access to emergency health care of the unvaccinated? Hospital overload has been a liminal crisis for the past 2 years, but has yet to materialize as a real issue. Have we just been getting lucky? narrowly avoiding disaster each wave? Because this is almost starting to look like a boogeyman that pops up on a regular basis that reminds us that we need to live in fear.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      > Vaccination should help reduce the load, but has anything else been done? Hasn't staff in hospitals decreased over the course of the pandemic? Aren't we funneling tons of money to pharma People can go and get a jab. This is easy. Can be done in minutes. No harm done. You can't build a hospital like that or get personal cloned from some pool of educated personal. Even if we'd have started 2 years ago. Wtf do you want with a field hospital? Those people don't need bandages...what are you talking about?? I know this smokescreen it just came up all over the anti-vaxxer scene. It's a hilarious attempt to cloud their own responsibility and divert the anger away from them. It won't work because it's so cheap and stupid. Especially coming from people who refuse to accept the easiest and fastest solution. And NO, hospital overload is the only valid point. By spreading and keeping the pandemic running you also ruin peoples lifes economically. People who depend on crowds coming to their store for example or doing sports with them. Than there is long COVID... Man...this topic is not new. All those ways this is harmful has been presented in the media over the last years. How can you still be so ignoran December 2021????

ryan_lane 5y ago

You're taking extreme talking points on this and making it seem like it's the norm. Vaccines don't stop being from transmitting, but it reduces the length of infection by about 2 days, it drastically reduces the likelihood of infection, which drastically reduces the transmission rate, and recent studies have shown that it does also reduce the likelihood of transmission directly. Vaccinated people with breakthrough cases may end up in the ICU, but the rate of hospitalization, admittance to the ICU, and cases of death are considerably lower than those who haven't been vaccinated. Using the extreme example, and pointing out that each argument is wrong, rather than extreme, while not discussing the facts is just another form of misinformation.

native_samples 5y ago
It would be nice if they're extreme talking points, but these are routinely presented by the media and public health agencies. For example up until very recently claim (4) was being made in Germany, and claim (3) is basically the claim underlying any implementation of vaccine passports - of course, we may suspect they are in reality merely means of extra-judicial punishment, but governments officially deny it. Regardless, whilst these claims are "extreme" in the sense of being phrased in absolutes, they aren't "extreme" in the sense of being rarely believed, are they? Not only do they crop up all over this thread but in the very article the thread is about, Angelas Merkel, not exactly famous for being the Queen of Extreme, says "The fourth wave must be broken and this has not yet been achieved" which is simply another way of saying (3) and strongly alluding to (1) and (2). Also: "it drastically reduces the likelihood of infection, which drastically reduces the transmission rate, and recent studies have shown that it does also reduce the likelihood of transmission directly" Let's break this down: 1. Infection rates. Health agencies claim it reduces the likelihood of infection, and at first it genuinely seems to, but the only one that is willing to show the actual raw data before they wildly alter it using statistical techniques, is the UK HSA. Their data shows that by now the rate amongst vaccinated people is actually a lot higher than among the unvaccinated for some large age groups! This sounds like it should be impossible, but it turns out to have been observed in pre-COVID times with other vaccines. They have been reduced to claiming that comparing case rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people isn't a valid way to determine if the vaccine works, due to vague behavioural differences that they speculate must exist but have no proof for. 2. Rate of transmission. Not for the first time, we find that epidemiological studies aren't worth much. Can you cite yours, so we can see when it was written? Because once again UK data contradicts it (or it does now at least): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... "In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated)." No real difference in transmission at all. Actually slightly higher for vaccinated people but let's assume that's not really significant.