I identify as vaccinated

[Minty]

@Isaac - I think they can only base the numbers on who has been tested positive for covid for these numbers, as they don't know who hasn't had it or has been asymptomatic?

I understand that it sort of skews the numbers, but the underlying message and stats seem very clear at least in the UK where we have had a massive vaccination take up. The number of people (Over 25 as that is where the vaccinations and seriousness of illness seem to tail off) having to be hospitalized when definitely infected has plummeted. When hospitalised the numbers dying have also dropped to virtually none.

The areas we have the worst rates for, are where the vaccine take-up has been very poor.
This is not a coincidence.

 

[Isaac]

The areas we have the worst rates for, are where the vaccine take-up has been very poor.
This is not a coincidence.

Of course it is not a coincidence. The vaccine is preventing people from becoming seriously sick with COVID.

No denying that.

The remaining question has more to do with what we don't know yet about the vaccines.

To me, just my rational mind sees them coming out with 1) problem, then 2) problem, and it takes a while (in some cases a month or three months) to find them.

Is it rational at all to think to yourself "They won't find any more. That's the end of it".
Or is it more rational to think to yourself "They probably will find more problems"

Keep in mind I totally agree with what you just said. I have no argument that the vaccine seems to be preventing people from getting seriously sick with COVID. Where disagreement lies is those who assume - for no particular reason, and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary from centuries of medical treatments histories--assume that no other serious negative impacts from the vaccine will be discovered, and thus, the brand-new numbers that we have now for vaccine efficacy vs. vaccine harm, are "the end of the story"--That just makes no sense at all to assume, and in fact, makes a LOT more sense to assume the opposite, based on history.

 

[Jon]

Let us take the unvaccinated child. The risk of death for children is currently low. However, this child can spread the disease, which can then kill others. I think they are saying that an infected Covid person can spread the disease to 2 or 3 others. This is for, I assume, an unvaccinated population. However, if you have had one Astra Zenica jab, it is only 33% effective against the new Indian variant. By effective, I mean the ability to catch it, not death. And the new Indian variant is about 50% more transmissable than the previous Kent variant that would infect 2 o 3 others. Factor in that not everybody is getting the jab and you have an exponential viral spread on your hands.

So, for the younger generation who are unvaccinated, they become the main spreaders. And while their risk of death is low, it is ignoring the future consequences of more lethal variants as the virus constantly mutates.

We can all take the decision to not get vaccinated because we don't have the long term data. That is a personal choice. But there are consequences. You can argue that there could be unforeseen consequences by taking the vaccine, but to my mind the known consequences of not taking it is catastrophic for society.

 

[Jon]

Where disagreement lies is those who assume - for no particular reason, and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary from centuries of medical treatments histories--assume that no other serious negative impacts from the vaccine will be discovered,

Who assumes this?

Edit: Medicine has evolved considerably from centuries ago, as have safety protocols.

 

[Jon]

It's also interesting to me that you agree with Jon, who used--as a big part of his argument--the following:

all governments are advising us to take the vaccine. Why? Because they have teams of virologists and medical experts working on the risk vs rewards.

and

It isn't just my position, but the position of all governments throughout the world and most scientists who specialise in this area.

It wasn't a big part of my argument. It was just a part. To say it was a big part is to misrepresent my case. I just tagged it on to say that many scientists have a similar opinion of the risk vs reward to myself. If you look at my argumentation on the reasons for why I think it is irrational to not take the vaccine, you will see that this point was hardly ever mentioned. Yet you are claiming it is a big part. If you want to attack my argument, at least do it on the pivotal points I am making, not on one of the most minor points. If you want to create a straw-man argument, then continue to say it was a big part of my argument.

To attack some of my key points, how about these:

1. How do you address the certain risk of future mutations and what impact they might have?

2. How do you deal with the unvaccinated increasing the spread of disease to others, and thus feeding into these future mutations?

Edit: In fairness, you can attack any part of my argument. But the point you raised is not a big part of my argument, that's all.

 

[Saphirah]

Of course it is not a coincidence. The vaccine is preventing people from becoming seriously sick with COVID.

No denying that.

The remaining question has more to do with what we don't know yet about the vaccines.

To me, just my rational mind sees them coming out with 1) problem, then 2) problem, and it takes a while (in some cases a month or three months) to find them.

Is it rational at all to think to yourself "They won't find any more. That's the end of it".
Or is it more rational to think to yourself "They probably will find more problems"

Keep in mind I totally agree with what you just said. I have no argument that the vaccine seems to be preventing people from getting seriously sick with COVID. Where disagreement lies is those who assume - for no particular reason, and against overwhelming evidence to the contrary from centuries of medical treatments histories--assume that no other serious negative impacts from the vaccine will be discovered, and thus, the brand-new numbers that we have now for vaccine efficacy vs. vaccine harm, are "the end of the story"--That just makes no sense at all to assume, and in fact, makes a LOT more sense to assume the opposite, based on history.

Isaac I see 2 main arguments in your posts.
First is the potential side effects of the vaccines. While i do understand that medicine has different effect on people the side effects on the vaccine are minimal.
You took the blood clots for example. In the UK from 23 million first doses 309 had a case of blood clots, and 56 died. So the probability to get these blood clots is around 0,0013% if i calculated that right. The mortality rate is even less. In my opinion this still outweigths the advantages of ending the pandemic by far.
When you take a look at the frequency information of side effects in medical prescriptions the rarest frequency says 1 in 10.000, which is still more than the side effects of this vaccine. So taking ANY medicine will potentially have more side effects than this vaccine.

Your second argument states, that we do not know the potential harm the vaccine can cause after a few years.
So i ask you this, and i am really interested in this fact, because i have not found any reliable informations about the topic yet.
Is there any vaccine that caused harm after years of applying it? Is there any recorded death of a flu vaccine for example?
Because you need to keep in mind that vaccines and every day medicine differ very much. Medicine is supposed to change the state of your body by applying external substances. Vaccines make the body produce antibodies that protect against a specific virus.
And you need to be carefull mixing those 2 up, because they simply can not be compared.

 

[Jon]

I think Isaac's concern is that this is a new type of DNA based vaccine (did I get that right?) and therefore that comes with more inherent risk. Since I am not a medical scientist and just some dude arguing on forums, I do not know enough about the risks associated with this sort of thing. Yet I believe the scientists themselves would know more than most of us.

There is a philosophical argument to some of this. If an individual has little risk of dying themselves from infection (e.g. a child), but are likely to pass this infection onto others who then die, should the child be vaccinated? Some will argue the rights of the individual trump those of the group, others will argue the other way around. But if the individuals rights prevail, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? i.e. a virus spreads that kills children but not adults. The pro-individual stance may come back to bite you.

And one more angle...Covid is likely to be here to stay. When you are a child, you are not at risk. But this child is likely to meet future mutations of this virus when they become an adult. And then perhaps they will start arguing that the children should be vaccinated too.