Mandatory Vaccinations And Medical Exemptions

[MisterMarcus]

They don't stop catching and spreading and it seems government will be pushing for boosters every 6 months. Sounds like they are working well.

They don't 100% stop it but they significantly reduce it.

Like how seat belts or airbags don't 100% stop people dying in car accidents, but they significantly reduce it. Nobody's arguing we should ban seat belts or refuse to make them mandatory because "you can still die with it".... (well, probably a few people ARE saying this.....)

 

[The 747]

They don't stop catching and spreading and it seems government will be pushing for boosters every 6 months. Sounds like they are working well.

According to your post they increase the risk of death, are you backing away from that now?

 

[Big Cox 88]

According to your post they increase the risk of death, are you backing away from that now?

I'm observing this from both sides and found that article interesting. I do not believe that the vaccine will make a huge difference at all if you are healthy and am not backing away from what I've posted. As posted earlier the absolute risk reduction of vaccines is between 0.7-1.5% contrasting the clinical effectiveness claims of 95%

 

[MisterMarcus]

As posted earlier the absolute risk reduction of vaccines is between 0.7-1.5% contrasting the clinical effectiveness claims of 95%

Do you have a source for this?

 

[kingswood71]

I'm observing this from both sides and found that article interesting. I do not believe that the vaccine will make a huge difference at all if you are healthy and am not backing away from what I've posted. As posted earlier the absolute risk reduction of vaccines is between 0.7-1.5% contrasting the clinical effectiveness claims of 95%

Now if you had started with that, I wouldnt have disagreed with you entirely.
I agree that an unvaccinated healthy 20 year old is unlikely to die. The data bares that out. However when you look at the data on Scottish deaths, the vaccination shows a significant risk reduction across all age groups.
EDIT: I see you mention RR, what risk are you referring to?
if its deaths, take the under 40's. Covid deaths unvaccinated is 27. Fully vaccinated is 0. I cant be buggered doing the whole RR calculation as it would mean chasing the vaccinated/unvaccinated group sizes, but its significant.

 

[The 747]

I'm observing this from both sides and found that article interesting. I do not believe that the vaccine will make a huge difference at all if you are healthy and am not backing away from what I've posted. As posted earlier the absolute risk reduction of vaccines is between 0.7-1.5% contrasting the clinical effectiveness claims of 95%

So the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing serious infection is between 0.7 and 1.5%? I just want to be sure I understand your position - absolute risk reduction = clinical effectiveness?

Your previous post stated that vaccines increase the risk of death, this post says they reduce it (marginally).

 

[Big Cox 88]

Do you have a source for this?

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - PubMed

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Jimi]

Scotland's department of health released figures from the UK during August.

Excerpts:

Further evidence proving the Covid-19 vaccination programme is failing has been released which confirms throughout the whole of August 80% of the people who died of Covid-19 had been vaccinated against the disease.

Take a look at the latest Covid-19 Statistical Report released by Public Health Scotland (PHS) on the 8th September 2021.

According to table 16 of the report between the 28th August 2021 and the 3rd September 2021 there were 36 admissions to hospital related to Covid-19 among the unvaccinated over 60 population, whilst there were 7 admissions on the partly vaccinated population.

However, there were a huge 299 admissions among the fully vaccinated over 60 population, and the same pattern can be seen for the weeks previous all the way back to the 7th August 2021.

In all for the week of 28th August to 3rd September 2021 there were 271 hospitalisations among the entire unvaccinated population but 423 hospitalisations among the fully vaccinated population. If we base these hospitalisations occurring after the previous weeks confirmed cases then we can calculate the case-hospitalisation rate.

In the week beginning 21st August there were 15,047 confirmed cases among the unvaccinated population. Therefore based on the unvaccinated hospitalisation figures of 271 in the week beginning 28th August the case-hospitalisation rate is 1.7%. However, when we carry out the same calculation for the fully vaccinated population hospitalisations (423) and cases (14,519) we can see that the case-hospitalisation rate is 2.9%.

Therefore, this shows that the Covid-19 injections are increasing the risk of hospitalisation when exposed to Covid-19 by 70% rather than reducing the risk by the 95% claimed by the vaccine manufacturers and authorities.

So now that we’ve cleared up the Covid-19 injections increase the risk of hospitalisation rather than reducing it let’s find out if they prevent deaths like the authorities claim.

Table 17 of the Public Health Scotland report shows the number of deaths to have occurred via vaccination status.

The number of deaths by vaccination status between the 5th August 2021 and the 26th August 2021 are as follows –

• Unvaccinated population – 25 deaths
• Partly vaccinated population – 6 deaths
• Fully vaccinated population – 92 deaths

This means the unvaccinated population have accounted for just 20% of alleged Covid-19 deaths throughout the whole of August, whilst the fully vaccinated accounted for 75% of them. But couple the partly vaccinated deaths with the fully vaccinated deaths and you can see that throughout August 80% of deaths occurred among the vaccinated population.

This a text book example of base rate fallacy.
Over 80% of Scots are vaccinated, especially in high risk groups, -so of course you are going to see a higher proportion of vaccinated people dying.

 

[Big Cox 88]

So the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing serious infection is between 0.7 and 1.5%? I just want to be sure I understand your position - absolute risk reduction = clinical effectiveness?

Your previous post stated that vaccines increase the risk of death, this post says they reduce it (marginally).

You can't take one month like the article did and assume that is the long term number. I posted below on the absolute risk reduction that is the number I believe is correct.

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - PubMed

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[MisterMarcus]

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - PubMed

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction measure two completely different things.

It's a bog standard anti-vax talking point to try to confuse the two, then claim the scientific community is lying: "They said it was 90% but it's really only 0.5%! More Big Pharma LIES!"

It's also a very common anti-vax tactic to claim the ARR (which compares to the entire population and therefore is always much lower) is the 'true' number. They want to make the number look as tiny as possible to support their anti-vax claims.

 

[Big Cox 88]

Absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction measure two completely different things.

It's a bog standard anti-vax talking point to try to confuse the two, then claim the scientific community is lying: "They said it was 90% but it's really only 0.5%! More Big Pharma LIES!"

BTW I am fully vaxxed aside from this and the flu shot. So is my child, so don't be throwing antivax labels around.

I respect your opinion and welcome your comments on the topic. It would be great if more people were open to conversing over things rather than shutting people down and labelling them as antivax.

 

[MisterMarcus]

BTW I am fully vaxxed aside from this and the flu shot. So is my child, so don't be throwing antivax labels around.

I respect your opinion and welcome your comments on the topic. It would be great if more people were open to conversing over things rather than shutting people down and labelling them as antivax.

ARR and RRR are not the same thing and shouldn't be confused. And ARR is not the correct measure to use when measuring vaccine effectiveness. Unfortunately, if the starting point of the 'debate' is factually untrue, there's not much anyone can do except say "This is not true, stop perpetuating this falsehood".

I have some experience debating anti-vaxxers (by which I mean genuine 'out and proud' anti-vaxxers), and deliberately confusing ARR and RRR is indeed a very standard anti-vax talking point they try to push.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

What a dumb comparison.

A seatbelt cannot kill you.

Oh yes it can.

An Immediate Death by Seat Belt Compression; a Forensic Medicine Report

Although death is a gradual process, sometimes sudden death occurs in a fraction of a minute or seconds. Here we report a 49-year-old man without any underlying disease, which has instantly died in an accident scene due to compression of neck critical ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So we still wear them because the risk of injury and death by not wearing them is far, far greater than wearing them.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

You're scraping from the bottom of the toilet there. It's a stupid comparison.

Why? It's a basic risk calculation. The risk of something going wrong by wearing a seatbelt vs not wearing a seatbelt.

The same calculation is made when assessing any medical procedure. There is a risk with any medical procedure. What are the odds of an adverse event if you do take the vaccine vs if you don't? At the moment, with 99% of the COVID cases in Victorian hospitals being unvaccinated and not a single death of a double vaccinated Australian (happy to stand corrected on this), it provides some compelling evidence that these vaccines are doing what they are intended to do.

 

[MisterMarcus]

You're scraping from the bottom of the toilet there. It's a stupid comparison.

If you'd like a medical comparison then, it would be like the risk of dying on the operating table vs the risk of refusing receiving major life-saving surgery.

There is indeed a risk that operations "can kill you". But we don't encourage people to refuse life-saving surgery on the small chance they might die on the table.

 

[The 747]

You can't take one month like the article did and assume that is the long term number. I posted below on the absolute risk reduction that is the number I believe is correct.

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - PubMed

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Posts excerpt from study which confirms anti=vaxx/conspiracy beliefs - check

Responds to good faith questions by avoiding them and posting more links - check

Mentions family - check

Complains about being bullied - check

 

[The 747]

Absolutely laughable. You reek of desperation.

Having a very specific and rare type of severe car crash where seatbelt compression kills you is nothing like injecting a substance into your body that is known to cause both death and nerve damage in the fact. I'm willing to bet in 99% instances of "seatbelt compression" killing a person (which is already a microscopic number), not wearing the seatbelt wouldn't have saved them.

Not reading the rest of your post. Come up with something better than that rubbish.

Oh hai, there! Great to see you are back

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Except that's still a bad comparison because my life is not in danger if I contract Covid. The same would apply to the vast majority of the population.

I'll just leave this here. Sure, the odds are in your favour if you're younger, fit, etc but it can still take you out.

Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated

Forklift driver, who died at home 13 days into his isolation, is the youngest person to die of coronavirus in NSW since the start of the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

 

[MisterMarcus]

Except that's still a bad comparison because my life is not in danger if I contract Covid. The same would apply to the vast majority of the population.

I think the millions who have died from covid might disagree with you there....

 

[HTT]

Absolutely laughable. You reek of desperation.

Having a very specific and rare type of severe car crash where seatbelt compression kills you is nothing like injecting a substance into your body that is known to cause both death and nerve damage in the fact. I'm willing to bet in 99% instances of "seatbelt compression" killing a person (which is already a microscopic number), not wearing the seatbelt wouldn't have saved them.

Not reading the rest of your post. Come up with something better than that rubbish.

Souurrcceeee
Not reading the rest of your post.

 

[Turnover]

Except that's still a bad comparison because my life is not in danger if I contract Covid. The same would apply to the vast majority of the population.

Me me me me . Others live on this planet.

 

[MisterMarcus]

"Millions" with deteriorating immune systems.

So we need high vaccination rates to provide herd immunity to protect said immunocompromised people, you agree?

 

[jle101]

Something that will most likely come to Australian shores soon enough...

Nigerian governor with ties to World Bank requires proof-of-vaccination to enter places of worship, banks - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

 

[HTT]

This guy for starters:

Developed both heart inflammation and bell's palsy less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine. His speech is now permanently impaired.

Tragic. How many people have suffered from this after being vaccinated? Which vaccine did they receive? What is the expected rate of this occurring in the wider population?
One incident doesn't even prove correlation, let alone causation.

 

[jle101]

Lol, the Daily Mail fudging the numbers in their own "poll" here. Overwhelmingly negative response to this article exposes classic spin doctoring.

Vaccine passports? Yes, say majority of Mail on Sunday readers (msn.com)