NO TROLLS What is the actual case against COVID Vaccination?

Remove this Banner Ad

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
But hasn't the whole Vax debate been about what's best for society, not necessarily the individual?

Mass Vax is a public health response, not an individual health measure.

That's the point that almost everyone forgets.
It's always been a bit of both individual and collective. When Oz decided no AZfor under 60s, it was after crunching the numbers and deciding it was slightly safer in a covid free environment for those individuals under 60 to not take AZ and wait for Pfizer. That equation for the individual as well as the collective changed in NSW and Vic with covid outbreaks.

What I'm talking about is regarding individuals. But I'm talking about whether a booster increases immunity for those recently recovered. So it only effects the collective if it does increase immunity. It increases antibodies for other strains, but does it actually impact the likelihood of the person catching and spreading Omicron in the shortish term? Seems unlikely. If it does increase it, booster up, as that benefits both the individual and the collective. If it doesn't, don't, but ultimately we don't know yet.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,179
13,100
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
So it only effects the collective if it does increase immunity.

Not really.

Less people with symptoms, less sickies. Less sickies, better business.

Less people in hospital, less taxpayer dollars go to public health. More beds available for people who need them for other shit.


I've always thought the Vax was mostly a public health response to dealing with a pandemic. The individual angle was barely relevant I thought.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not really.

Less people with symptoms, less sickies. Less sickies, better business.

Less people in hospital, less taxpayer dollars go to public health. More beds available for people who need them for other sh*t.


I've always thought the Vax was mostly a public health response to dealing with a pandemic. The individual angle was barely relevant I thought.
I don't get what you mean. It's only less sickies if it increases immunity?
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
39,747
38,069
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
So do the vaccinated.

The question is whether the vaccine is beneficial and reduces instances and hospitalisations in the now quite large group of people who have recovered from a case and thus whether or when they should get a booster shot and thus whether mandates should apply for unvaccinated recoverees now and or if a third dose is considered necessary to be considered fully vaccinated. Different countries have come to different conclusions as the medical jury is still out.

No the question is:

'Would a policy that [exempts people from vaccination due to a prior COVID infection], reduce the rates of people getting vaccinated (with them seeking infection as a viable alternative)?'

If we implemented such a policy (prior exposure = no vaccine needed), the net effect would be a far lower vaccination uptake than we currently have. By extension, this would lead to higher hospitalization rates, more deaths, faster transmission, more pressure on hospitals, and a lower standard of care, because a significant number of people would simply wait for infection and not bother getting vaccinated.

In other words, such a policy would have a net negative health impact overall (and individually in many cases) than our current blanket 'get vaccinated or else' policy would have, regardless of the answer to your question above.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
No the question is:

'Would a policy that [exempts people from vaccination due to a prior COVID infection], reduce the rates of people getting vaccinated (with them seeking infection as a viable alternative)?'

If we implemented such a policy (prior exposure = no vaccine needed), the net effect would be a far lower vaccination uptake than we currently have. By extension, this would lead to higher hospitalization rates, more deaths, faster transmission, more pressure on hospitals, and a lower standard of care, because a significant number of people would simply wait for infection and not bother getting vaccinated.

That was the question, but I think it's time to move on from that question.

A huge percentage of people now have some immunity, through either the vaccine or covid. The question is now how to best manage ongoing immunity within the community.

We're no longer at a stage where immunity is reduceable to vaxed or not vaxed. That question is now redundant.

The impact of the booster in terms of stopping spread is likely to last about 12 weeks, thus the hierarchy of Omicron immunity is currently probably:

Vaxed, boosted in last 12 weeks + Omicron
Vaxed + Omicron
Unvaxed + Omicron
Vaxed and boosted recently
Vaxed with an old booster
Vaxed no booster
Unvaxed.

It's very likely that people who have had Omicron are actually protected against further cases of Omicron in the short term (which is all we're talking about with the booster too) Thus it's very likely that there isn't an effective difference between lines 1+3 in the hierarchy above, despite the booster giving them added antibodies.

It's no longer about vaxed or unvaxed. It's now about when is it appropriate to give an immunity boost.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
39,747
38,069
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
That was the question, but I think it's time to move on from that question.

No, I dont think it is time yet. We're only just beginning our first ever surge here in WA for example, and the anti-vaxxers are still marching on Parliament.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
No, I dont think it is time yet. We're only just beginning our first ever surge here in WA for example, and the anti-vaxxers are still marching on Parliament.
Might still be an issue still for WA which hasn't already had enough 'Omicron to shrink the no immunity group to the point of irrelevance.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
39,747
38,069
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Might still be an issue still for WA which hasn't already had enough 'Omicron to shrink the no immunity group to the point of irrelevance.

Yeah. But it's also not really a concern in the Eastern States with a 90 percent plus vaccination rate.

The only people being punished right now by the rule are anti-vaxxers, and that's what the rule was brought in for in the first place.

The punishment needs to be sufficient so those kooks know that next pandemic, we mean ******* business.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
23,135
27,643
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
That was the question, but I think it's time to move on from that question.

A huge percentage of people now have some immunity, through either the vaccine or covid. The question is now how to best manage ongoing immunity within the community.

We're no longer at a stage where immunity is reduceable to vaxed or not vaxed. That question is now redundant.

The impact of the booster in terms of stopping spread is likely to last about 12 weeks,
thus the hierarchy of Omicron immunity is currently probably:

Vaxed, boosted in last 12 weeks + Omicron
Vaxed + Omicron
Unvaxed + Omicron
Vaxed and boosted recently
Vaxed with an old booster
Vaxed no booster
Unvaxed.

It's very likely that people who have had Omicron are actually protected against further cases of Omicron in the short term (which is all we're talking about with the booster too) Thus it's very likely that there isn't an effective difference between lines 1+3 in the hierarchy above, despite the booster giving them added antibodies.

It's no longer about vaxed or unvaxed. It's now about when is it appropriate to give an immunity boost.

I am interested to see where this (apparently authoritative) conclusion comes from.

And also where all the "current probably", "very likely" comes from.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I am interested to see where this (apparently authoritative) conclusion comes from.

And also where all the "current probably", "very likely" comes from.
I'd need to look it up, but approx 3 months of high enough antibodies to neutralise Omicron post booster comes from Pfizer, I think?

The probably regarding immunity from Omicron is based on other strains of covid and other diseases. Additionally, we can assume it gives short term immunity, otherwise waves wouldn't have declined quickly in countries with low rates of vaccine and booster. That's almost certainly naturally acquired immunity that brought that South African wave down.

We'll get a better idea over the coming months about how long that lasts, but I'd be betting against South Africa having another Omicron wave any time soon. Their next significant wave is more likely to be a new strain that breaks through omicron acquired immunity, or quite a long way down the track if that strain doesn't arrive.
 
Last edited:

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
23,135
27,643
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I'd need to look it up, but approx 3 months of high enough antibodies to neutralise Omicron post booster comes from Pfizer,

The probably regarding immunity from Omicron is based on other strains of covid and other diseases. Additionally, we can assume it gives short term immunity, otherwise waves wouldn't have declined quickly in countries with low rates of vaccine and booster. That's almost certainly naturally acquired immunity that brought that South African wave down.

We'll get a better idea in a couple of months about how long that lasts, but I'd be betting against South Africa having another Omicron wave any time soon. Their next significant wave is more likely to be a new strain that breaks through omicron acquired immunity, or quite a long way down the track if that strain doesn't arrive.

You seem to be taking a whole lot of educated guesses, piling them on top of each other and then draw conclusions from that information - in support of your overall agenda. No offense but there is not much substance to it, based on what you have posted.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
32,170
44,240
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
You seem to be taking a whole lot of educated guesses, piling them on top of each other and then draw conclusions from that information - in support of your overall agenda. No offense but there is not much substance to it, based on what you have posted.
That's absolutely what I'm doing, except for an agenda. It's also absolutely what is being done in regards to recommending booster shots to people who have recently had Omicron. The data on Omicron reinfection is not in and thus the jury is still out. There is no evidence based conclusions that can be made yet.

People should follow the current advice, because it comes from people best educated to get their guesses right, but there is a decent chance it will change when more is learnt, because we just don't know if a booster does actually increase protection of those who have recovered from Omicron. We know that it raises their antibody levels with antibodies that are effective in large enough amounts. But it only increases protection if naturally acquired immunity leaks and holds for less time than the booster gives its benefits, in terms of prevention. And there is a fair chance that the boosters benefits won't last longer in this group of people.

It's only after more data is in on Omicron re-infection rates that anyone can say confidently if and when it is beneficial for recovered Omicron cases to receive a booster dose. At the moment it is just educated guesses based on theory.
 
Last edited:

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
39,747
38,069
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton

DERIBERATE

Premiership Player
Feb 12, 2010
4,083
7,574
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide United, Leeds, Bohemians

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
39,747
38,069
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
How about the double blind Japanese study ? The Malaysian study wasn’t exactly definitive . JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered IVM Study


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're ******* kidding. The FLCCC? Shills and grifters selling snake oil, and pushing misinformation:

While the physicians treating Jeffrey opposed the use of the drug, Julie Smith connected with Dr. Fred Wagshul, who runs an ivermectin-promoting group called Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Dr. Wagshul is not board certified in any specialty and does not have privileges at West Chester or any other hospital.

On August 20, Dr. Wagshul prescribed ivermectin to Jeffrey Smith without seeing Smith or talking with his treating physicians.

Forced use of horse dewormer on COVID patient overturned by Ohio judge

For the lols keep reading:

After reviewing the case and evidence, Judge Oster determined that "there can be no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19."

In addition to the plethora of medical opposition to the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, Judge Oster also cited testimony from Dr. Wagshul himself, who was wishy-washy on ivermectin's effects. When asked directly if continuing to give Jeffrey Smith ivermectin would benefit Smith, Wagshul responded, "I honestly don't know."

They're quacks making a profit of people like you buying their debunked snake oil, that even they themselves acknowledge doesnt actually work.

Whats next? 'Americas Frontline Doctors?'

Jesus mate. Stay off the internet for a while.
 

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
6,091
7,290
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
The "published research" on that FLCCC page took me to some random webpage.

So the question for me: Do I trust the Journal of the American Medical Association or some random webpage?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad