Vaccine hesitant versus Anti-Vaxxer Why are they bundled into the same category?

Why do people who have questions about a vaccine get tagged as being anti-vaxxer?

This was an entirely intentional operation with every single death as direct blood on the CCP and Illuminati's hands.

Covid vaccine is unique, stop pooling in anti-all-vaccine people with those skeptical specifically about Covid's origins and the vaccine(s) associated with it.

For everyone else, especially schoolchildren, I loathe, literally abhor, the pro-vaccine stance being taken regarding them. They don't die from it, clearly the psychopaths who designed this virus didn't want to kill them (there's never ever been a virus that is so gentle on youth while simultaneously being so brutal on the elderly, proportional to age in how harsh it attacks). 

youthful populations tend to have far stronger immune responses than the elderly, and that yields a lot of diseases that cause far more harm among the elderly than among youthful populations.

The vulnerable are responsible for taking the vaccines or not, not the children.

I was pro-isolation for schoolchildren before the vaccines existed exactly because they could infect older people they live with. I understood that then. Now, if they infect someone living with them and that person suffers due to it as they're unvaccinated themselves, it's that person's fault not the child's.

The problem with your stance is you don't realise the risk vs reward here. We literally don't know wtf Pfizer/Moderna can do further down the line with mRNA aftereffects and we've already seen blood clotting and other issues associated with the covid-based vaccines.

I recommend researching what a vaccine does before telling me 'oh there will be a delta, episolon through to sigma and theta variant and we can't vaccinate against them all'. A vaccine is meant to prevent against the virus and how severely even the mutations can affect you because your body is prepped for the type of body/shape that the virus has (that's what immunity is based around).

Beyond that, nothing is guaranteed and indeed it can hurt people after a while anyway as the white blood cells lose the shaping and memory of the previous virus after some time. There's no severe gain against the newer variants with vaccinating. This virus mutates extremely fast.

If new variants are inevitable and each seems to be gentle to the youth without severe underlying conditions, it implies we should only be pressuring adults to get vaccinated. Much more important than vaccination is practises/habits of people in their daily life and how they interact with surfaces and other people.

 I don't appreciate your actively misrepresenting my point to suit your narrative, nor do I appreciate your misrepresenting the facts. 

 The vaccine works well against the new variants we've gotten so far, even with the fast mutation rate.

I didn't misrespresent anything. You on the other hand have done precisely what you say I am doing to you, to me.

There will be many variants, if the vaccine is futile against them then it is futile to force on an age group that basically are de facto immune to it symptomatically to get vaccinated.

Politicians disagree with you, they fancy reintroducing lockdowns due to the delta and future variants, a constant threat in the News.

I agree that our "practises/habits" with respect to preventing infections matter quite a bit, but a) not everyone is consistent in those and we shouldn't expect that they will be, meaning that the bad habits of a large number of actors can continue to keep the virus active and thriving in the population, b) this means that having good habits is not a guarantee of protection,

I would say that it's inevitable that there will be new variants. It is not at all certain that those variants will always be "gentle to the youth" or will be consistently and effectively targeted by the immune responses generated in response to the vaccines, and the more opportunities that we give this virus to mutate, the greater the odds that a mutation may actually cause great harm to children or circumvent immune responses.

These patients still tend to do much better than the unvaccinated even when they are infected, but that doesn't mean that a vaccinated individual is perfectly protected, which is particularly problematic for those with weak immune responses. 

Vaccination failing to produce strong immune responses happen.

I disagree that there's substantial reason to be concerned over the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines and their long-term side effects. The blood clotting has not been linked to either vaccine, nor has there been any substantially dangerous vaccine side-effects linked to these vaccines. You can point to the shorter term pain and difficulties that some have experienced, but nothing deadly nor anything terribly risky aside from allergic reactions have happened. If we're concerned about longer term effects, then the long haul issues with COVID-19 are already becoming clear, whereas no such effects have been detected in patients receiving these vaccines, and there is no indication that such effects will be detected since all traces of the vaccine are gone from the bodies of people who have received the vaccinations.

So far, the only longer haul explanation I've seen for why people might see side effects is the potential for autoimmunity in the generated antibodies, though to my knowledge, no cases of that happening exist.

Neither is a vaccine. The selling point of practicing, for example, good hygiene is that it's non-invasive, and its long-term effects aren't manipulated by political pandering.

So, is it your argument that failure to receive an mRNA vaccine or some steroid-boosted vaccine is a cause of mutation? Please expand.

And this is based on what? That is, the tendency to "do much better" than the unvaccinated?

Yes, they do. As well as produce adverse effects which undermine the intent of one's inoculation. Hence, the argument "vaccination = health/protection" is one that has not been substantiated with sufficient controls.

And this conclusion has been rendered after how many years of trials? How can one speak to "long-term" effects when trials which barely pass for rigorous have spanned only for a year and a half?

Then I suggest researching further into the subject, and to pay particular mind to their methodologies and the limitations of their experiments/trials/studies etc. Most of the studies which state that the mRNA vaccines do not "seem" to produce autoimmune diseases are incredibly limited.

The first thing you misrepresented was that I don't know what mRNA is or does, it's something you have misrepresented throughout appealing to authority constantly (that authority being your actual self).

I recommend researching what a vaccine does

I don't need to respect or care about your PhD and achievements in mRNA research. You told me you research plants, not people. mRNA messing to colour a plant differently or manipulate its growth is fine because it's a plant. Once we get to animals and then humans it suddenly isn't so funny to say one is crazy to oppose the research or worry where it's headed.

You can deny what it's capable of, I know what it's capable of and am not misrepresenting you when I say that the skepticism about it is well-founded and the defense against it is extremely rhetoric and peer pressured amongst doctors and scientists. If you're in the field, you'd know what it's capable of. Do not downplay how much it can alter in DNA. Any article denying it can change DNA is lying. All of the journalists are delivering misinformation because they believe it's a greater good to defend the vaccine than admit the capabilities which may be a correct call to make but it absolutely can alter DNA, especially in a slight way that we'd not notice at first. mRNA is to cells what selecting 'yes' to 'allow this program to change my computer' is when you give a program administrator access to install it and/or update it.

I didn't say that it was, though to say that the long term effects of vaccines are somehow manipulated by political pandering seems a bit odd.

I have no problem with practicing good hygiene. I have a problem with the argument that vaccines should be a distant second to something that many individuals don't practice as well as they should.

Don't know what you mean by a "steroid-boosted vaccine", but my argument is that more infections = increased numbers of mutants. Fewer infections = fewer mutants. Vaccines reduce the number of total infections, their duration, and their spread.

Actual data?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but it's a pretty easily demonstrable fact that vaccinated people are less likely to get the virus, far less likely to be hospitalized if they do get it, and far far less likely to die if they get it.

Mind detailing those adverse effects?

A minority of cases in which the vaccine fails to elicit strong immune responses is not demonstrative of overall vaccination failure

Similarly, incidence of adverse effects does not "undermine the intent of one's inoculation", since in the vast majority of cases, even people who suffer from adverse effects are still protected. And I disagree wholeheartedly that "vaccination = health/protection" has not been substantiated by the data. With over a billion people vaccinated, there is more than sufficient data to make that conclusion, and I would argue that the studies undergone by the companies that produced these vaccines had sufficient controls to reach that conclusion.

You are more than welcome to discuss any data you've seen that indicates that the vaccine remains in the body beyond a few days after the administration of the vaccine.

Yes, there isn't data for it because none of the vaccines have been around long enough to make those conclusions. That doesn't mean that there is good reason to suspect that such long-term effects are likely, or that they outstrip the long-term effects of the virus.

I read quite a bit into the subject. I disagree that the research into it is "incredibly limited" and I disagree that there is something wrong with their methodologies. Not every study is perfect, but quite a few of them have demonstrated this very effectively from where I'm sitting.

How is it odd? I'll ask what I asked earlier: how can one speak to "long term" when the spans of trials have been limited at best?

Would it not then be more prudent to promote good hygiene as was done earlier during this "pandemic" (which by the way saw record lows in flu contractions) than to promote the administration of a vaccine--which will virtually be mandated--the long-term effects of which have not been ascertained?

By steroid boosted vaccines, I'm referring to the corticosteriod that is claimed to boost the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. And if fewer infections lead to fewer number of mutants, then vaccines aren't necessary, correct? One could apply what has been consistently the primary counter to the spread and contraction of infection, which is good hygiene, correct?

What data?

This reference should suffice:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

I'm not suggesting that this demonstrative of vaccination "failure." Only that the argument  "vaccine = health/protection" has not provided sufficient controls, especially considering that there have been a number of people who have died immediately after vaccination.

No they don't. Because there's one thing that the data can never prove: vaccination works. In order for a study to prove vaccination works, it would have to control for the survival and death as a result of the COVID-19 virus within the same sample. The data that both you and I have presumably seen do nothing more than produce ecological inference and post hoc fallacy arguments. That is, it renders conclusions both after the fact, and based on observations of other people. Those fallacious arguments are not based on sufficient controls.

But they are incredibly limited, and part of that is by reason of the limitation of the trials, which the CDC had set for the two years. And two years has not passed since the beginning of these trials. We just passed one year a couple of months ago.

I'm not against vaccination, believe it or not. I am however against this COVID-19 vaccination and its variants. Its spread and the promotion of its vaccination are far too suspicious especially considering that patents for the coronavirus span as far back as 1984 (and this is verifiable.)

It's odd because political pandering doesn't modify the long term effects of the vaccine. As for speaking to those effects, as I already said, there can't have been studies going on for long enough to make that possible, but that doesn't mean that there's substantive reasons to be concerned.

I don't think it has to be one or the other. You can disagree with the mandate if you wish, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think there's substantive reasons to be concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine, and I also don't see efforts to push people to be more hygienic as sufficient to quell the pandemic on their own.

I'm not sure how you derive that conclusion from my statement about fewer infections leading to fewer mutants. Again, I see supporting improved hygiene as additive to supporting more widespread vaccination.

This, as a start.

It doesn't mention the coronavirus vaccines.

I mentioned that later because I feel that if you're going to argue that there are major long-term concerns regarding adverse events, then there should rationally be some basis for that belief, as opposed to just a statement that we cannot know yet.

Haven't seen evidence of what you've bolded here, at least not with these vaccines. Maybe you're talking about the broader set of all vaccines, but I'd rather keep this focused on this set for now if you don't mind. 

Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients. [**]

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That's less than 1%.

If you think the data is fallacious, then I don't see us having a friendly discussion over this.

You can argue that the kinds of studies that they can do are limited, which is partially true because they cannot actively challenge vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with the virus to see what happens.

That being said, they can actively monitor the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of antibody production, incidence of illness, severity of illness, and numerous other factors. It's never going to be perfectly controlled, but that doesn't mean that the studies are functionally worthless and in no way demonstrate any effectiveness of vaccination.

The vaccination of large populations produces some pretty impressive datasets that can be used to make the case as well. If you don't agree, I guess that's your opinion, but this is a pretty hard line of difference between us if so.

It strikes me that that two year timeframe was pretty arbitrary to begin with.

You can argue that they haven't met it anyway, but I'm not clear on why that specific length of time is what makes the data sufficient, especially if you're talking about long-term data.

Well, I disagree on multiple fronts, but your suspicions aren't actually verifiable.

I'm not sure what patents you're talking about,

or why they're relevant here,

but it seems to me that when you're dealing with a pandemic, particularly one responsible for as many deaths as this one, responding with vaccination on a wide scale seems entirely appropriate.

That's my point, observations of the long-term effects cannot have been ascertained at this point in time, and the urgency of the vaccine's necessity is grossly exaggerated. 

The mandate isn't just a subject of agreement; it's a matter of morality as well. Coercing the populace into taking a vaccine they have no intention of taking out of concerns which need only be valid to them is immoral. Arbitrarily deciding on which "religious exemption" suffices is the prerogative of neither the State nor physicians' association.

Because good hygiene is still the primary countermeasure to the spread and contraction of infection, generally speaking. 

Where in this reference is it expressed that the vaccinated have a tendency to do much better than the unvaccinated?

That is a perfectly legitimate inquiry. We cannot know yet is double edged in that it modifies arguments both in favor and against the administration of this vaccine. One cannot expect conclusions about the long-term, when the long-term has not been observed or sufficiently mirrored.

Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149

This is another reference from when I was discussing the issue with DoubleR:

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That's less than 1%.

I don't think the data is fallacious. The conclusions drawn from the data are fallacious, specifically the ones I already mentioned.

None of which has anything to do with one's own individual health. And I'm not stating that these studies are "worthless," only the arguments based on these studies which propose logically inconsistent/fallacious reasoning.

My reference to the two year mark is intended to pile on to the notion of how novice and limited the conclusions have been. Vaccines typically undertake 10-15 years in trials, the length of which provides at least a medically sufficient basis to make conclusions about the "long-term." The CDC "expedited" this process and set a two year mark. It's been little more than a year, and demagogues have been either pandering or outright lying about a vaccine, the long term effects for which they could not have possibly ascertained.

No, the patents are verifiable.

A patented virus which causes a global pandemic isn't relevant?

I agree with the former statement to a point. If the argument is that there could be long-term effects, then I'd like to know where those potential effects could be derived from if not the material from the vaccine or the resultant products of its expression.

As for the latter statement, I disagree. I guess it depends on how much you value of the lives lost in the process of trying to contain this pandemic,

I've got mixed feelings about the mandate, but suffice it to say that I don't see it as inherently immoral, particularly if it gives various exemptions. Not going to get into the morality of a mandate here, though.

I think it could be the primary countermeasure, assuming that everyone behaves accordingly. It's extremely effective if everyone does it, not so much if they don't.

In the hospitalization and death statistics. If they're getting hospitalized in far fewer numbers and dying in far fewer numbers than the unvaccinated, they tend to do much better than the unvaccinated.

You said half the population has been vaccinated and yet 99% of COVID-related deaths are among the un-vaccinated.  Let's for a moment indulge these statistics at face value. For example, the United States has a population over 330 million, about 210 million of which are adults. Thus far, there have been about 616,000 people who have died in the U.S. as a result of COVID--or so they state. 99% of that is 609, 840. According to the CDC, 165,637,566 people have been vaccinated which accounts for about 49.9 percent of the population. So, 50.1 of the unvaccinated would amount to 166,301,444. Now we take 609, 840 deaths of the unvaccinated, divide it by 166,301,444 of the un-vaccinated populace and multiply it by 100 to acquire the percentage. Do you know what that percentage is? 0.367%. Not even close to 1 percent. That means 99.633% of the un-vaccinated have survived after being exposed to this virus for almost two years.

Now there are studies that say that COVID deaths go as high as 900,000 in the U.S. Substitute this figure in the previous calculations and that would still mean that 99.464% of the un-vaccinated have survived after being exposed to this virus for almost two years. Your interpretation of your own statistics fail you, sir.

The difference here is that your argument is based in the view that there could be something that happens in the long term, but lacks any analysis of the vaccine or other vaccines that provides a meaningful basis for believing that such long terms effects are more than just faint possibilities. It's possible, I grant that, but I don't grant the plausibility of long-term harms because of the extremely short-lived nature of the vaccine and its product.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-norway/fact-check-discussion-of-deaths-in-elderly-vaccine-recipients-in-norway-lacks-context-idUSKBN29P2R1

There was a bit of a fact check by Reuters on this one. Apparently, no causal link between their vaccinations and their deaths were discovered. Also, considering the already substantial death toll among the elderly in nursing homes (an estimated 45 each day), attributing these deaths to vaccination solely because they happened to receive the vaccine the day they died is a bit problematic.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/norway-deaths-coronavirus-vaccine

My argument wasn't that the vaccine affords absolute protection from death, though I think these numbers are similar to those in my link. Saying that they aren't attributable to the vaccine only begs the question of what you could attribute this high survival rate to among the vaccinated population.

...I'm sorry, does antibody production have nothing to do with individual health?

We can look at individual patients and monitor differences between a vaccinated and unvaccinated person in terms of what they produce with regards to immune defenses and provide a pretty clear picture of how they're likely to respond to the virus.

There is always going to be variation in how people respond to the virus, but having a head start on an immune response provides a pretty clear picture of how likely they are to mount a strong immune response to the virus before it has time to replicate and spread.

I'd say that the rushed schedule was justifiable given the existence of the ongoing and, in some cases, worsening pandemic. I'd also say that a lot of the studies were done before this that paved the way for these to be produced in both a safe and efficacious manner. You clearly don't agree with either assessment.

Again, would really love to see that patented virus. I haven't been able to find it. Assuming that it was patented, I'd like to see some evidence that it's the same coronavirus. Coronaviruses existed before the patent, they existed afterward, and they have been worked on in many labs. If you can provide some link between that patented virus (not really sure it exists, but I'll assume it does) and the current pandemic, be my guest.

What about the vaccine's function in "teaching" cells to produce covid spike proteins as means to develop an immune-response?

You're appealing to emotion; you can no more gauge the value I place on these lost lives anymore than I can yours. Hence, there's no point in bringing it up, especially considering the argument, "covid vaccine prevents covid death," hasn't been substantiated.

Arguing it's moral integrity depends on which moral philosophy we use as a metric. I am however certain that I can argue its immorality consistent with any metric that's worth while.

No, it is. The conditions you propose qualify this measure no more than it does the others. Here, for example: "vaccination 'could be' extremely effective if everyone does it, not so much if they don't." Good hygiene would still be the primary countermeasure.

Your conclusion from these statistics are based on a post hoc fallacy.  You're claiming an efficacy of vaccination simply by counting after the fact

I can no more assert that "such and such" effect will happen than you can assert that "such and such" effect won't happen because of the extremely short-lived nature of the vaccine an its product.

You have a "public statement." That is not a fact-check. (Especially considering Pfizer's involvement in the investigation.)

Since we cannot control for the effects of the vaccine as it pertains to its capacity to prevent death, the prospect of which would necessitate observation of both the survival and death of the same individuals, then any "survival rate" attributed to the vaccine would be chiefly based on a post hoc fallacy. Unless you can substantiate that a person would have died with certainty absent of being inoculated with this vaccine, the survival rates are moot, especially considering, as I demonstrated above that, absent of vaccination, the U.S. unvaccinated have a 99.426% "survival rate."

The antibody production of another individual, for example, cannot inform on my antibody production.

And the conclusions from such a method would produce an ecological inference fallacy. That is not science; that is mere assumption.

And to what extent can this be quantified? "How strong" does one's immune response have to be?

If I had the evidence you seek, I would have either been murdered, or the subject of both morning and evening news for years to come.

I'm banking on the idea that you're a fairly intelligent individual, at least from what I have observed during my time in this  forum, who can put two and two together, especially considering your expertise on the subject of microbiology with the particular focus on viruses.

But I will ask this: is it conceivable, plausible, or even possible that the COVID-19 virus could have been a strain developed from a manipulated SARS-Cov base?