Jump to content

Coronavirus


robf

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, valiant_593 said:

"My mother and father had underlying health problems".

This is the key sentence.

However, people with the vaccine are still dying and being hospitalised, so sadly, it might not have saved them anyway.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/06/26/cdc-4115-fully-vaccinated-have-been-hospitalized-or-died-with-breakthrough-covid-19-infections/?sh=542e6d736993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


14 minutes ago, valeparklife said:

"My mother and father had underlying health problems".

This is the key sentence.

However, people with the vaccine are still dying and being hospitalised, so sadly, it might not have saved them anyway.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/06/26/cdc-4115-fully-vaccinated-have-been-hospitalized-or-died-with-breakthrough-covid-19-infections/?sh=542e6d736993

The vaccine reduces the effects of the virus. It could have saved their lives. Just doesn’t make sense to me if they had underlying health issues why they wouldn’t have the vaccine. 

Edited by valiant_593

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, valiant_593 said:

The vaccine reduces the effects of the virus. It could have saved their lives. Just doesn’t make sense to me if they had underlying health issues why they wouldn’t have the vaccine. 

So is the CDC source that I've quoted a lie then?

That has data stating that vaccinated people had COVID so severe that they were hospitalised and/or died?

Maybe they were worried about the side effects of the vaccine?

Maybe they were worried that the vaccine is still in it's trial phase until 2023 and didn't want to be a human guinea pig (clinical trials are usually very well financially compensated)?

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

Maybe they have seen that between 8 December 2020 and 11 June 2021, a total of 5,522 people died within 28 days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Scotland?

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/8183/21-06-23-covid19-publication_report.pdf#page=28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry but if you have severe health conditions and would be at extreme risk from dying from covid then you should have the vaccine. Just for your own safety, regardless of any possibly side effect as you may not live king enough to even have said side effects. It just makes no sense. 
 

Never said that, and if nobody had the vaccine there would be thousands and thousands more (just like in the pandemic). To your other figure, I’d argue that number would have been much higher if not for the vaccine. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

On page 9 of the file you linked in. It shows a graph showing the huge reduction in hospital admissions. I’d argue this is a result of the vaccine working? Especially as some normality has returned. 
 

I will stick to what doctors have told me / info everywhere online.  It dosent stop you from getting covid, it reduces the impact of it. So if you are in bed Ill with Covid after two jabs then chances are you would have been hospitalised ect. 
 

Would what the public prefer? A vaccine so we can get back to some form of life? Or another 2/3 years in lockdown whilst tests are done on animals? Makes no sense. I was worried about the side effects just as i imagine most people are but I want to get back to life and protect those around me, my pregnant wife and elderly relatives and they have been clinically tested, not just rushed out.  As LV keeps saying on here we needed to get back to living, having the vaccine allows that. It allows people to safely see elderly relatives without putting them at risk of dying. Of course there will still be anomalies but the majority are going to be much safer after having the vaccine. That’s a fact.  
 

Just looking at the page named main points. That just shows that there have been lots of cases but not many hospital admissions again showing the worth of the vaccine. It is in general reducing the impact of the virus. 
 

Compare last year, where people were dying in large numbers as a result of covid and we were in lockdown. No we’re are getting close to some normality. Events have thousands of people sat next to each other, clubs open ect and the number of deaths are significantly lower. The vaccine has to be having an effect. Less elderly people being admitted as well (I imagine the majority of those have had the vaccine) 

I know you don’t want the vaccine and I’m not saying you should, it’s your choice. What I am saying is that if someone is medically high risk and has health issues, then that is when covid can kill, if those people are able to have a vaccine, side effects or not (there may be no side effects there may be loads - who knows) then they should for their own safety have the vaccine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, valiant_593 said:

Im sorry but if you have severe health conditions and would be at extreme risk from dying from covid then you should have the vaccine. Just for your own safety, regardless of any possibly side effect as you may not live king enough to even have said side effects. It just makes no sense. 
 

Never said that, and if nobody had the vaccine there would be thousands and thousands more (just like in the pandemic). To your other figure, I’d argue that number would have been much higher if not for the vaccine. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

On page 9 of the file you linked in. It shows a graph showing the huge reduction in hospital admissions. I’d argue this is a result of the vaccine working? Especially as some normality has returned. 
 

I will stick to what doctors have told me / info everywhere online.  It dosent stop you from getting covid, it reduces the impact of it. So if you are in bed Ill with Covid after two jabs then chances are you would have been hospitalised ect. 
 

Would what the public prefer? A vaccine so we can get back to some form of life? Or another 2/3 years in lockdown whilst tests are done on animals? Makes no sense. I was worried about the side effects just as i imagine most people are but I want to get back to life and protect those around me, my pregnant wife and elderly relatives and they have been clinically tested, not just rushed out.  As LV keeps saying on here we needed to get back to living, having the vaccine allows that. It allows people to safely see elderly relatives without putting them at risk of dying. Of course there will still be anomalies but the majority are going to be much safer after having the vaccine. That’s a fact.  
 

Just looking at the page named main points. That just shows that there have been lots of cases but not many hospital admissions again showing the worth of the vaccine. It is in general reducing the impact of the virus. 
 

Compare last year, where people were dying in large numbers as a result of covid and we were in lockdown. No we’re are getting close to some normality. Events have thousands of people sat next to each other, clubs open ect and the number of deaths are significantly lower. The vaccine has to be having an effect. Less elderly people being admitted as well (I imagine the majority of those have had the vaccine) 

I know you don’t want the vaccine and I’m not saying you should, it’s your choice. What I am saying is that if someone is medically high risk and has health issues, then that is when covid can kill, if those people are able to have a vaccine, side effects or not (there may be no side effects there may be loads - who knows) then they should for their own safety have the vaccine. 

The graph on page 9 doesn't reflect the full picture.

Taking the snapshot from December to now does make it look like the vaccine has reduced cases. But if you go back and take a wider view then you can see the numbers have just returned to Sept-20/Oct-20 levels (way before the first vaccine). I don't know what caused the huge spike from Jan-Feb! Maybe Christmas spreading amongst families?

image.png.87c96f3dbb322e1d2c565a8f30ab3787.png

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals

The only thing stopping us returning to normal are the Government, who are clearly making monetary gain from all of this and not even following their own rules time and time again! If they're not taking this seriously then why is everyone else?

Like you say, if people want the vaccine, that's fine, if people don't want the vaccine, that is also fine. It's the rhetoric that vaccinated = good, unvaccinated = bad that is extremely loathsome.

You're actually a really fair poster, and it's nice to engage in healthy debate without having insults and abuse hurled around for having a different opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 08/08/2021 at 17:30, leedsvaliant said:

I don't deny that if you hermetically seal people apart from each other then they won't spread viruses but it's an impossibility.  The tactic we have used still spreads the virus but causes problems which far outweigh the effects of a virus. 

LV,  It's common sense and there are studies to show that the further two people are away from each other the less virus they are likely to transmit between each other and beyond a certain distance the less likely they are to transfer any virus between each other, Hermetically sealed of not.

On 08/08/2021 at 17:30, leedsvaliant said:

The mask studies you cite are correlation not causation.  They are not properly defined as a study of the effectiveness of masks and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that a fall in transmission was anything to do with mask wearing. 

The studies in the JAMA paper claim mask wearing reduces transmission and risk of transmission and the paper provides rationale for how this happens. If the reduction in transmission of the virus in not caused by masks, what is it caused by?

Granted the JAMA paper is more of a review article and going back to the original papers would be required to answer your point. However, I anticipate the authors of the JAMA paper did just that as I doubt a paper would get through peer review and get published in JAMA if mask wearing wasn't anything to do with the reduction in transmission.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

LV,  It's common sense and there are studies to show that the further two people are away from each other the less virus they are likely to transmit between each other and beyond a certain distance the less likely they are to transfer any virus between each other, Hermetically sealed of not.

The studies in the JAMA paper claim mask wearing reduces transmission and risk of transmission and the paper provides rationale for how this happens. If the reduction in transmission of the virus in not caused by masks, what is it caused by?

Granted the JAMA paper is more of a review article and going back to the original papers would be required to answer your point. However, I anticipate the authors of the JAMA paper did just that as I doubt a paper would get through peer review and get published in JAMA if mask wearing wasn't anything to do with the reduction in transmission.

 

Unfortunately 'common sense ' is not science.  

The studies you cite cannot definitely prove that masks were the cause of a reduction in transmission.  It could be a number of things. It's like saying I've never been in a car crash when wearing trainers, you can't possibly link the two. Until June last year they were stated by everyone from the WHO to PHE that masks were useless and then as soon as governments needed to give confidence back to their people they were mandated. The only real life dedicated study of masks took place in Denmark and found no use to the wearer or those around them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2021 at 11:51, valiant_593 said:

Whilst I have had the vaccine myself, I think these stories that are coming round are blatant propoganda, always using people with no apparent underlying health conditions and on some occasions 'super fit ' people.  Like every bit of news that comes out, these stories are always out of context and represent the absolute minority of these types of people who have been highly, highly unfortunate to have died. 

I respect people's choice to have the vaccine or not, but even without the vaccine your chances of being fine are well in excess of 99%. These stories, sad as they are, are unlikely to convince people to have the vaccine as people can see through the propoganda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 10/08/2021 at 14:33, valiant_593 said:

Im sorry but if you have severe health conditions and would be at extreme risk from dying from covid then you should have the vaccine. Just for your own safety, regardless of any possibly side effect as you may not live king enough to even have said side effects. It just makes no sense. 
 

Never said that, and if nobody had the vaccine there would be thousands and thousands more (just like in the pandemic). To your other figure, I’d argue that number would have been much higher if not for the vaccine. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

On page 9 of the file you linked in. It shows a graph showing the huge reduction in hospital admissions. I’d argue this is a result of the vaccine working? Especially as some normality has returned. 
 

I will stick to what doctors have told me / info everywhere online.  It dosent stop you from getting covid, it reduces the impact of it. So if you are in bed Ill with Covid after two jabs then chances are you would have been hospitalised ect. 
 

Would what the public prefer? A vaccine so we can get back to some form of life? Or another 2/3 years in lockdown whilst tests are done on animals? Makes no sense. I was worried about the side effects just as i imagine most people are but I want to get back to life and protect those around me, my pregnant wife and elderly relatives and they have been clinically tested, not just rushed out.  As LV keeps saying on here we needed to get back to living, having the vaccine allows that. It allows people to safely see elderly relatives without putting them at risk of dying. Of course there will still be anomalies but the majority are going to be much safer after having the vaccine. That’s a fact.  
 

Just looking at the page named main points. That just shows that there have been lots of cases but not many hospital admissions again showing the worth of the vaccine. It is in general reducing the impact of the virus. 
 

Compare last year, where people were dying in large numbers as a result of covid and we were in lockdown. No we’re are getting close to some normality. Events have thousands of people sat next to each other, clubs open ect and the number of deaths are significantly lower. The vaccine has to be having an effect. Less elderly people being admitted as well (I imagine the majority of those have had the vaccine) 

I know you don’t want the vaccine and I’m not saying you should, it’s your choice. What I am saying is that if someone is medically high risk and has health issues, then that is when covid can kill, if those people are able to have a vaccine, side effects or not (there may be no side effects there may be loads - who knows) then they should for their own safety have the vaccine. 

You're actually one of the more sensible posters on here that realises there is 'another side ' to the argument and can understand the concerns people have. 

Whilst I agree that for those who are clinically vulnerable or very old, the vaccine makes some sense. Even though the chance of dying (even in the vulnerable categories) has been vastly overplayed, you are more likely to become seriously ill as elderly or vulnerable. 

What I don't agree with, and it's something that valeparklife touched upon is this vaccine =good, no vaccine = bad attitude that has been creeped into people's consciousness by shameful propoganda.  It's like the Jews all over again!

If you are below 60 and with no underlying health conditions you are more likely to suffer from the effects of the vaccine than from the virus, particularly for those under 30, where you are more likely to suffer lifelong effects from the vaccine but yet are highly, highly unlikely to be made severely ill from Coronavirus.  You can understand these people's hesitancy when they're also told that they can still catch it and still transmit it, so they're not really helping wider society by having it.  

Again, I just don't think people fully understand their chances of becoming seriously ill or dying from this.  Even now, after 18 months, you will have been seriously unlucky to have been hospitalised or worse from Covid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, leedsvaliant said:

You're actually one of the more sensible posters on here that realises there is 'another side ' to the argument and can understand the concerns people have. 

Whilst I agree that for those who are clinically vulnerable or very old, the vaccine makes some sense. Even though the chance of dying (even in the vulnerable categories) has been vastly overplayed, you are more likely to become seriously ill as elderly or vulnerable. 

What I don't agree with, and it's something that valeparklife touched upon is this vaccine =good, no vaccine = bad attitude that has been creeped into people's consciousness by shameful propoganda.  It's like the Jews all over again!

If you are below 60 and with no underlying health conditions you are more likely to suffer from the effects of the vaccine than from the virus, particularly for those under 30, where you are more likely to suffer lifelong effects from the vaccine but yet are highly, highly unlikely to be made severely ill from Coronavirus.  You can understand these people's hesitancy when they're also told that they can still catch it and still transmit it, so they're not really helping wider society by having it.  

Again, I just don't think people fully understand their chances of becoming seriously ill or dying from this.  Even now, after 18 months, you will have been seriously unlucky to have been hospitalised or worse from Covid. 

What a load of dangerous nonsense. Young and middle age people are dying from COVID, because they are unvaccinated, and you still peddle this anti vaxer nonsense. What you are advocating is entirely the reason why many are dying and cases are still at a dangerous level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tommytunstall said:

What a load of dangerous nonsense. Young and middle age people are dying from COVID, because they are unvaccinated, and you still peddle this anti vaxer nonsense. What you are advocating is entirely the reason why many are dying and cases are still at a dangerous level.

1) I'm not an anti vaxxer, having had both doses myself, which in its very nature makes me the antithesis of anti vaccination. But I also understand the reasons why people would choose not to.

2) 'young and middle aged people are dying '. I'm sorry but this just proves my point.  The stats don't back your argument.  The vast, vast majority of people who have become ill or died are in the 70 plus bracket, predominantly 80 plus. Even then 99% plus of people will be absolutely fine. What you're confusing it with is some shameless propoganda stories circulating daily and making an assumption that this is happening everywhere, when it is not. 

It's your misunderstanding of what a 'case' means and what the risk to people is that has carried this nonsense on for way longer than it should have. 

Edited by leedsvaliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leedsvaliant said:

.

2) 'young and middle aged people are dying '. I'm sorry but this just proves my point.  The stats don't back your argument.  The vast, vast majority of people becoming ill or dying are in the 70 plus bracket, predominantly 80 

Just because it is predominantly older people dying doesn't automatically mean younger people aren't as well. Most people dying of cancer are a over 50 but does that mean there is no risk to under 50s? The <ovf censored> you peddle is dangerous and is the reason many people take offence at everything you post. You're a danger to society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, WV said:

Just because it is predominantly older people dying doesn't automatically mean younger people aren't as well. Most people dying of cancer are a over 50 but does that mean there is no risk to under 50s? The <ovf censored> you peddle is dangerous and is the reason many people take offence at everything you post. You're a danger to society. 

I don't believe it to be dangerous and I don't think people take offence, they just see this in a different way to me.  I believe it to be taking a pragmatic view rather than this hysteria that seems to have been assumed by people. Sometimes you've got to set aside the personal stories and look at statistics, and they back up the fact that younger people are not as affected. 

Absolutely, people under 50 have died from Covid and that's very sad for the families involved.  But in context it is very much not the norm.  The chances of you dying under the age of 60 and in good health are very, very small indeed.  I believe my individual chance was calculated at 0.005%. I would imagine many, many more people under 50 die of cancer, some of whom haven't received the necessary diagnosis or treatment because of the Covid only health service we seem to have ran.

Edited by leedsvaliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


As a cautionary tale from the opposite side of the debate, a number of health workers here have reportedly died after having the Chinese vaccine.

I have no idea what the number is as it's not usually reported. Only a single number % of the people here have been vaccinated.

Millions of doses have been donated even though there is an AZ plant here producing the vaccine. The plant was set up as an Asian hub and has to fill contracts..... similar to the EU controversy a short while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/08/2021 at 22:50, leedsvaliant said:
42 minutes ago, geosname said:

As a cautionary tale from the opposite side of the debate, a number of health workers here have reportedly died after having the Chinese vaccine.

I have no idea what the number is as it's not usually reported. Only a single number % of the people here have been vaccinated.

Millions of doses have been donated even though there is an AZ plant here producing the vaccine. The plant was set up as an Asian hub and has to fill contracts..... similar to the EU controversy a short while ago.

I believe the Chinese vaccination has been banned from most countries including the U.K. as it hadn’t passed the relevant tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...