NO TROLLS What is the actual case against COVID Vaccination?

Remove this Banner Ad

jim boy

Umpires Association Head
Jun 4, 2002
13,791
6,347
Location! Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
The justification for this stance is a somewhat unsourced view (?) that vaccination causes the same problems as existing in a too-sterile environment
Really you should point out to him that vaccines are the opposite of a too-sterile environment (which I agree is a major problem). Whether you get covid or whether you have a vaccine, you're body is introduced to something it doesn't like and reacts to it. The vaccine itself doesn't protect you against covid, its the natural reaction of your body to the vaccine that protects. Just the same way that playing in dirt leads to the natural reaction of your body to build a robust immunity system.
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
28,799
62,892
South Yarra
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
Really you should point out to him that vaccines are the opposite of a too-sterile environment (which I agree is a major problem). Whether you get covid or whether you have a vaccine, you're body is introduced to something it doesn't like and reacts to it. The vaccine itself doesn't protect you against covid, its the natural reaction of your body to the vaccine that protects. Just the same way that playing in dirt leads to the natural reaction of your body to build a robust immunity system.
Yeah I think his stance is pretty unscientific - natural is best and all. He’s a friendly guy and doesn’t force his views on anyone, but the natural take on deodorant leaves a bit to be desired
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Fewer and fewer reasons to avoid vaccination:

Switzerland’s Coronavirus Task Force on Thursday released a range of findings about the transmissibility of Covid-19 ahead of the planned rollout of booster shots across the country.

The findings showed the degree to which vaccination prevents further transmission.

Those who have been vaccinated are three times less contagious than those who have not had the jab.

The findings dispel one of the more pervasive myths about the virus which has been circulating since the start of the vaccination campaign, i.e. that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus and infect others.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
Much of the vaccine hesitancy comes from trusting the information coming out of countries that are promoting such impressive figures.

For example, this is the data for Switzerlands suspected adverse vaccination reactions reported (both serious and non-serious);
(source: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/symptoms?vaccine=pfizer_biontech )

1643175376324.png

If you hover over the end of the graph it shows as at 12/1/22, there has been a total of 3,354 reports from 5,315,575 doses.
That calculates out to 0.06%.
Now we know that is certainly not a true reflection of adverse reactions for Pfizer doses in Switzerland given in Australia, AusVaxSafety who survey participants for adverse reactions in days 0-3 after each vaccination shows the following;
( source: https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/all-participants/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-all-participants )

1643175718273.png

So, if Switzerland appear happy to present misleading data about Pfizer Vaccine safety, that erodes my confidence in the rest of the data that they are presenting.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
23,135
27,643
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Much of the vaccine hesitancy comes from trusting the information coming out of countries that are promoting such impressive figures.

For example, this is the data for Switzerlands suspected adverse vaccination reactions reported (both serious and non-serious);
(source: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/symptoms?vaccine=pfizer_biontech )

View attachment 1316574
If you hover over the end of the graph it shows as at 12/1/22, there has been a total of 3,354 reports from 5,315,575 doses.
That calculates out to 0.06%.
Now we know that is certainly not a true reflection of adverse reactions for Pfizer doses in Switzerland given in Australia, AusVaxSafety who survey participants for adverse reactions in days 0-3 after each vaccination shows the following;
( source: https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/all-participants/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-all-participants )

View attachment 1316577
So, if Switzerland appear happy to present misleading data about Pfizer Vaccine safety, that erodes my confidence in the rest of the data that they are presenting.

So does Switzerland ask the same follow up questions and follow the same post vaccination process as Australia?

Reason for vaccine hesitancy is because the Swiss are reporting lower adverse reactions than Australia. Riiiight.
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Much of the vaccine hesitancy comes from trusting the information coming out of countries that are promoting such impressive figures.

For example, this is the data for Switzerlands suspected adverse vaccination reactions reported (both serious and non-serious);
(source: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/symptoms?vaccine=pfizer_biontech )

What does that represent? How do they gather these? What follow-up has been done to sort the true adverse reactions from the simply coincidental?

If you hover over the end of the graph it shows as at 12/1/22, there has been a total of 3,354 reports from 5,315,575 doses.
That calculates out to 0.06%.
Now we know that is certainly not a true reflection of adverse reactions for Pfizer doses in Switzerland given in Australia, AusVaxSafety who survey participants for adverse reactions in days 0-3 after each vaccination shows the following;
( source: https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/all-participants/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-all-participants )

View attachment 1316577

Again, what's the methodology and follow-up?

So, if Switzerland appear happy to present misleading data about Pfizer Vaccine safety, that erodes my confidence in the rest of the data that they are presenting.

In what way are they misleading?

Take VAERS - did you know that anyone can report "adverse reactions"? That within VAERS, nothing has been investigated?

Is that the same case here? That the collection process is different, but that the above charts are just unfiltered reports from anyone who wants to make a report?
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
So does Switzerland ask the same follow up questions and follow the same post vaccination process as Australia?

Reason for vaccine hesitancy is because the Swiss are reporting lower adverse reactions than Australia. Riiiight.

I would have thought my post was simply showing that one country says 0.06% of doses results in a vaccine adverse reaction being reported, while another has about 50%. That's just simple maths.
 

Forward Press

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2011
36,181
53,553
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
So does Switzerland ask the same follow up questions and follow the same post vaccination process as Australia?

Reason for vaccine hesitancy is because the Swiss are reporting lower adverse reactions than Australia. Riiiight.

What does that represent? How do they gather these? What follow-up has been done to sort the true adverse reactions from the simply coincidental?



Again, what's the methodology and follow-up?



In what way are they misleading?

Take VAERS - did you know that anyone can report "adverse reactions"? That within VAERS, nothing has been investigated?

Is that the same case here? That the collection process is different, but that the above charts are just unfiltered reports from anyone who wants to make a report?

The 'free speech banned' dude is himself propagating misinformation. If you visit the ausvaxsafety.org site, it tells you those adverse effects are mostly localised pain and swelling (wow, I got a sore arm and bump from a jab, clearly it's harmful!), along with other minor short term effects. Just 3-14% reported either fever or gastrointestinal issues.

The site itself even states:

These symptoms are known to occur after vaccination. They are generally mild and short-lived. As with any adverse event reports, not all symptoms reported may be caused by the vaccine; they may be coincidental and due to other causes.

It is a common tool of the anti-vax brigade to be selective with their data.
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
I would have thought my post was simply showing that one country says 0.06% of doses results in a vaccine adverse reaction being reported, while another has about 50%. That's just simple maths.
And then using that to claim that Switzerland is being misleading... and so anti-vaxers are right.
 

Forward Press

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2011
36,181
53,553
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
And then using that to claim that Switzerland is being misleading... and so anti-vaxers are right.

From the site that 'free speech banned' avatar conveniently cropped out of his screenshot (I wonder why?)

The graph shows the development of the number of reports of suspected adverse vaccination reactions (AVRs) occurring in a temporal relationship with the vaccination. The AVR figures cover vaccines from all suppliers.

Serious adverse vaccination reactions are those that are fatal or life-⁠threatening, require hospitalisation or the extension of hospitalisation, lead to permanent or serious disability or incapacity or manifest in a congenital malformation/birth defect. They also include reactions that are judged to be medically important because they acutely endanger patients or require treatment to prevent a serious outcome.
All other side effects are deemed to be non-⁠serious side effects.

The 0.06% figure relates to AVRs, not all adverse effects such as local pain and swelling at the injection site.

In conclusion, utter garbage misinformation post that he should circulate on Twitter because Fox News and Craig Kelly might pick it up.
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
What does that represent? How do they gather these? What follow-up has been done to sort the true adverse reactions from the simply coincidental?

Did you ask those same questions when referencing the Switzerland deaths by vaccination status?
Both data comes from the same "trusted" source.

Again, what's the methodology and follow-up?

Go check out the website.
AusVaxSafety are funded federally by our Australian Health department (like the TGA).
They are part of Australia's National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS).
They have been doing vaccine participant surveys for a long time.
You can compare the Covid-19 results to Influenza and other vaccines on the website.
For example;
1643177029799.png


When you compare those stats to the Covid-19 stats, you will see the Covid-19 vaccines are far less safe than the influenza vaccines.
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
The 'free speech banned' dude is himself propagating misinformation. If you visit the ausvaxsafety.org site, it tells you those adverse effects are mostly localised pain and swelling (wow, I got a sore arm and bump from a jab, clearly it's harmful!), along with other minor short term effects. Just 3-14% reported either fever or gastrointestinal issues.

The site itself even states:



It is a common tool of the anti-vax brigade to be selective with their data.

Again, about 50% adverse reactions reported vs Switzerlands 0.06%. The maths really is simple.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
The AusVaxSafety data is fairly consistent with the Pfizer submission to the FDA back in December 2020 in which the following was reported;
"The most common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%)."

What is out of place is the data from Switzerland in which they present just 0.06% of doses resulted in reports of serious or non-serious adverse reactions.
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
From the site that 'free speech banned' avatar conveniently cropped out of his screenshot (I wonder why?)



The 0.06% figure relates to AVRs, not all adverse effects such as local pain and swelling at the injection site.

In conclusion, utter garbage misinformation post that he should circulate on Twitter because Fox News and Craig Kelly might pick it up.

Thankyou for that extra information from the Switzerland website, especially that bit that you quoted that said;
"All other side effects are deemed to be non-⁠serious side effects."

That is, given that 0.06% includes non-serious reports, Switzerland should be reporting all adverse reactions, similar to those shown by AusVaxSafety and by the Pfizer safety reports submitted to the FDA for Emergency use approval.
But they don't, hence a reason for vaccine hesitancy from people who are looking for trusted data and questioning why some apparently "trusted" sources are presenting misleading data.

Likewise, Australia's TGA, another Australian Health funded website (like AusVaxSafety) shows the current reported adverse events to be about 2.2 per 1,000 doses, while AusVaxSafety shows numbers 25-65% depending on the vaccine and dose number (or about 400 per 1,000).
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
AusVaxSafety are funded federally by our Australian Health department (like the TGA).
They are part of Australia's National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS).
They have been doing vaccine participant surveys for a long time.
You can compare the Covid-19 results to Influenza and other vaccines on the website.
But what is the methodology and follow-up?

Is this an unverified collection of reports yet to be filtered and investigated?
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
But what is the methodology and follow-up?

Is this an unverified collection of reports yet to be filtered and investigated?
I fail to even see how that is relevant.
AusVaxSafety have been doing these same studies prior to the pandemic.
At the very least, a comparison between their results for Covid-19 and other vaccine results is valid ... unless you can show their methodologies have changed dramatically between those different vaccines.
Also, AusVaxSafety data is close to Pfizer's reported data (while the Switzerland data is not), so for you to question their process, while not equally wanting to question the Switzerland deaths/vaccination status data appears to me to be strange.
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
while not equally wanting to question the Switzerland deaths/vaccination status data appears to me to be strange.
I did question it. See above:


If they are both just unfiltered lists of reports like VAERS, then you can't really compare them. What is the collection methodology?
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
I did question it. See above:


If they are both just unfiltered lists of reports like VAERS, then you can't really compare them. What is the collection methodology?

What I believe is the major difference between VAERS (and for that matter the Switzerland data & our own TGA data) vs AusVaxSafety is those first three rely more on people sending unsolicited reports in, vs AusVaxSafety actually target a response from dosed participants (adverse reaction or not).
That is, by the very nature of VAERS/Switzerland data/TGA, they will under-report vaccine adverse reactions because not everybody will report. So then when the adverse reactions are shown as a percentage of doses, it is widely misleading vs the AusVaxSafety data which is looking at reports from a sample of doses and showing the results of participating responses.

AusVaxSafety has some information on their website relating to how they collect and collate their data;
https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/our-work/active-vaccine-safety-surveillance

Do I believe the AusVaxSafety data is accurate ... No I don't.
They recently took a month off reporting and when they returned, there was some rather hard to believe alterations to the 3rd Pfizer dose statistics ... but that's another story for another time.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,179
13,100
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Much of the vaccine hesitancy comes from trusting the information coming out of countries that are promoting such impressive figures.

For example, this is the data for Switzerlands suspected adverse vaccination reactions reported (both serious and non-serious);
(source: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/vaccination/symptoms?vaccine=pfizer_biontech )

View attachment 1316574
If you hover over the end of the graph it shows as at 12/1/22, there has been a total of 3,354 reports from 5,315,575 doses.
That calculates out to 0.06%.
Now we know that is certainly not a true reflection of adverse reactions for Pfizer doses in Switzerland given in Australia, AusVaxSafety who survey participants for adverse reactions in days 0-3 after each vaccination shows the following;
( source: https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/all-participants/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-all-participants )

View attachment 1316577
So, if Switzerland appear happy to present misleading data about Pfizer Vaccine safety, that erodes my confidence in the rest of the data that they are presenting.
But do 'adverse' reactions equate to something being unsafe??
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
108,852
90,018
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
What I believe is the major difference between VAERS (and for that matter the Switzerland data & our own TGA data) vs AusVaxSafety is those first three rely more on people sending unsolicited reports in, vs AusVaxSafety actually target a response from dosed participants (adverse reaction or not).
So why are you comparing them? And using that comparison to claim the Swiss are misleading people?
 

Gruffles

Club Legend
Feb 25, 2009
1,155
1,638
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
So, if Switzerland appear happy to present misleading data about Pfizer Vaccine safety, that erodes my confidence in the rest of the data that they are presenting.

Maybe the Swiss don't have a thorough follow-up system like we do here that guides you through a questionnaire every now and then (just got one sent to me today coincidentally) and rather use a self reporting system that requires some initiative.

Maybe the Swiss culturally don't feel the need to report minor vaccine side effects such as localised pain/swelling or a mild fever?

I think declaring that they're using misleading data is a little rich rather than thinking they're just using the data they have. This doesn't mean it's thorough data though.

Comparing adverse reactions from covid vaccines compared to flu vaccines doesn't fly for me though. I've had plenty of flu vaccines... Never have I been sent multiple follow-up questionnaires to fill out afterwards.
 

PurpleEyes

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2013
3,110
8,592
AFL Club
Fremantle
So why are you comparing them? And using that comparison to claim the Swiss are misleading people?
Because VAERs, Switzerland and TGA are designed to misrepresent and under-report the actual number of vaccine adverse reactions, as shown by the AusVaxSafety data which better represents the actual percentage of risk associated with each dose.

The AusVaxSafety data also shows that 1.1% of Covid-19 doses (vs Influenza 0.3%) results in the person seeking a GP or ER/Hospital/medical attention (I believe within 0-3 days) ... which further demonstrates that 0.06% Switzerland statistic to be misleading.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad