@The Catboy Another example of somebody using a source that goes against their own point for you to view above lmao
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
What sources back up the anti-vaccine movement?
- Thread starter The Catboy
- Start date
- Views 20,125
- Replies 337
- Likes 6
- Status
I don't think you understand how statistics work
and you will also cite to me muh medical studies as proofs the vax is efficacious
like studies are conducted on 100% of the population and not a small group
out of 100 people who had to hospitalized 80% of those 100 people were fully vaccinated
b,b,b,ut muh pandemic of the unvaccinated
soo your stating you don't know who Vaccination and Virus work...
seeing that the Vaccination are not 100%! breakthrough chase will happen, the point of the vaccine is to slow and starve off the virus.. there is a point statically that Vaccinated will be infected as the population become completely vaccinated because of simple math but those number are minuscule as Australia hospitalization rate proves it.
@The Catboy you are not the only one, no one in my town wants to get the shot, let alone wear facemasks, (With the exception of me).
Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research.
???
I am confused, are you saying that you are also asking for sources? I am actually super pro-mask and literally bought tons of masks that match my outfits. I also got my shots and will be getting additional boosters because my immune system is bad but not bad enough to prevent me from getting vaccinated.
what I am trying to say is that I am one of the only ones in my community that does what the cdc says, and yes, I am looking for sources.
"Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research."
what?
there is no peer reviewd paper, there is no "research" involved
he is simply stating the facts and telling how many hospitalization they had and how many were vaccinated
it's just a daily briefing on how may people are in hospital and he states details about the hospitalizations
like how many are on ventilators and how many received vaccination and how many shots they received
there is nothing to misquote you can watch it for yourself
But he’s talking bout a country that is heavily vaccinated with a minuscule hospitalization rate..
Approximately 92% of COVID-19 deaths are unvaccinated according to the CDC. That number may vary based on the vaccination rate in a given area.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
but the claim is that the vaccination prevents hospitalizations
so is that is the case then why is it not 80% unvaccinated in and 20% fully vaccinated instead of the other way around
it doesn't matter the size of the population or how may are vaccinated
it's not relevant to the hospitalization ratio
you can say well that is just one place at one time
but similar numbers are being reported as in the P-town MA outbreak
80% of the people who got it were fully vaccinated , you can argue that the vaccine is not being claimed to prevent infection but then look at the hospitalizations in that outbreak , 4 out of 5 fully vaccinated , one with one shot
similar daily hospitalization reports out of the UK
they are claiming "pandemic of the unvaccinatd" and that the vaccines prevent hospitalization yet 80% of hospitalizations in 3 separate instances from 3 different parts of the globe at 3 different times and the reports are not showing facts that support those claims , they are showing quite the opposite
The answer is actually shockingly simple. As of late October, over 74% of Australians have received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 26% that have received none - the vaccinated cohort grossly outnumbers the unvaccinated cohort. The unvaccinated don’t show up in the hospital because they’re few and far between at this point. The vaccine was never going to prevent infection, and claiming that it will was the biggest mistake of many governments worldwide. What it *actually* does is training your body to better combat the infection, leading to milder symptoms and better outcomes. It’s not a force field, you can still catch the disease even if you receive two jabs. The point is that you’re unlikely to die from COVID because your immune system is capable of combating the infection better. That does not mean you won’t end up in a hospital if your immune system isn’t particularly good to begin with. To drive this point home, between the 16th of June and 18th of October there were 479 Covid deaths recorded in South Wales, out of which only 61 were fully vaccinated, and even those deaths had underlying conditions that worsened their state besides COVID. The unvaccinated or those only vaccinated once overwhelmingly outnumber the fully vaccinated in terms of the number of deaths. I hate giving The Guardian traffic, but oh well - these were the top results for the query.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ated-what-is-behind-the-australian-statistics
yes you could argue that but also you need to factor in herd immunity from people who may have already had it or had it and were asyptomatic and that case works in Australia but what about P-town
we are talking about one outbreak and 4 out of 5 were hospitalized
plus I think that outbreak happened close to the beginning of the vaccine rollout
and not as many in MA were/are vaccinated as in Australia
and the numbers were similar, similar 20% figure , 4 out of 5
Anyways I am not going to take it , the decision was pretty much already made for me anyways because I already had it and both my parents had it
natural immunity supersedes the vaccine anyways
from studies which I don't put much faith in and from personal anecdotal evidence
My dad is in his 70's , got COVID in march 2019 , works at a major international airport ,does not not take ANY precautions no mask no sanitizer no hand washing and he has not got reinfected, if he has not got reinfected nobody is going to get reinfected
there is no way he would not have been reinfected by now if natural immunity waned anywhere near as fast as the vaccines
he got it at the beginning and does NOTHING
amazingly I was infected by my mom and not him though who does take precautions but did something stupid and let her guard down
You actually really didn't, and you seem to not be able to understand what people here are trying to tell you. Your viewpoint is factually wrong. Incorrect. You goofed. The video doesn't tell the tale you thought it did. Your "other examples" were just stories without anything to back it up, and even if they do exist (not denying that they couldn't) you are misinterpreting the data. I'm genuinely sorry you've put yourself into this embarrassing corner, but I'd advise you to have a good think about what everyone's trying to explain and reply afterward if you still have an issue.
Or you could reply again, and show that you're more interested in anecdotal evidence and being a public health risk with your family... You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?
Last edited by Dakitten,
I am not reading any of that and this thread isn't just about the covid vaccine. The request for this thread has been just to get peer-reviewed papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement. That being said, you made a claim that I've been asking for a source of
What is the source that isn't just "Australian government?" And do those sources actually back up your claims?
"You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/study...s-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
"and infect others"
also you know that the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission right, source: CDC
Natural immunity is great and all, but to get natural immunity, they have to survive against the virus first. And we know how that goes for unvaccinated folks as the number of deaths continues to skyrocket while deaths of vaccinated folks move at a snail's pace. And there are folks that have tried herd immunity tactics and ultimately failed miserably.
And even with those that have natural immunity, it's still not 100% preventable and can still transmit the virus onto others. Cases have already been shown that even those that survive and have natural immunity can get infected again. And the CDC still recommends getting the vaccine even after recovering from it. The more layers of protection available, the better the chances of survival and less infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html
You seem to be jumping through logical hoops and skipping stuff by the CDC. The vaccines do have an effect to prevent transmission as much as possible. It's not 100%, sure, but it helps by actively killing the virus in your body so that less of the virus can be spread from your body and onto others, giving people around you better chances of not being infected as much and not get too sick. That's one of the big points of why vaccines are important. It's to not only protect you and have you survive, but it's to also help slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible and by extension, less odds of new variants of the virus to appear. Even with the new variants like Delta, the vaccines still have a decent amount of protection against them, so they'll still help give people better chances of survival and not getting the worst of the illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html
The vaccines are there to help EVERYONE, but the more stubborn unvaccinated people are, the longer for this whole pandemic to continue and more deaths to continue rising.
You're part of the problem when you try to dissuade others like this.
Last edited by NyaakoXD,
It’s not even a this or that kind of situation - you don’t “pick” what kind of immunity you have. If you’re vaccinated and you still catch COVID, your odds are higher, your symptoms will be milder and you will develop natural immunity. The vaccine doesn’t counteract that, it’s going to happen regardless of what you do.
There was a pact between 110 coutries and pharma corcerns like pfizer giving them too much credit to protect their interests despite any later researches and pandemic charts. That was just too big financial deal, but it may lead to something more suspicious, include some hidden goals of freemasons of agenda 2030 and global new order. Well if we know now that nwo is not a theory but a fact, so we can expect from them the worst. 0,1% trust for health care is the max i can give, but that's only my opinion. Sweden and UK have also very high amount and rate of infections and deaths despite they are most vaccinated countries, but that will never be concerned to stop this proceder or not, toxic vacinces have to be sold.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
