News Forum - CCSA Covid-19 plan: domestic vaccines, “learning to live with it”

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

The ratio natural/vaccin-induced immunity in Sweden will be far higher than in Israel and it is that factor that is important.

Let's overlook that Sweden has had twice as many deaths from Covid as Israel, but as asked before, how can the ratio possibly "be far higher" when the amount of covid cases and of vaccinations in Sweden and in Israel are virtually identical???

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

Yes.

 

1. Because you only get natural immunity after you get Covid, which means a lot of vulnerable people (who make up a third or more of the population) would be dead instead of getting natural immunity, which doesn't make it a great option compared to a vax where the chances of it killing you are rather less.

2. Because long Covid, months and possibly years  later, affects far more people than a vax.

3. Because a vax can be boosted very effectively and exponentially  by another vax. Natural immunity can't - a "booster" just acts as a normal jab for those who haven't had a jab before, nothing more.

[Bob20]

38 minutes ago, Stonker said:

So "refuting" my argument is to ask me something I've said very clearly is correct, and to give a link to an article by an anti-vax nut-job that, if you take the time to read it beyond the headline, not only doesn't say what you claim but doesn't even say what the reputable study it claims to be based on says?

An interesting  tactic .....

And that's how you can keep talking until you're blue in the face, whilst they never have any scientific evidence for their claims, simply using templates like below to distort matters, yet keeping you occupied and creating more online content to confuse unsuspecting other readers who in the end can't find truths, but only buckets-full of trash disguised as information. The less exposure you give them, the better.

That's just my opinion

BTW, not for Stonker but for the fanatics: Who needs a template for intentionally spreading disinformation, if you had a valid argument in the first place? (rhetorical)

How to convince.pdf

[Stonker]

40 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Results and conclusions of the study attached below, hardly qualifies as 'unproven speculation

Since the full study hasn't been published yet then by definition that's EXACTLY what it qualifies as!

[Stonker]

15 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

And that's how you can keep talking until you're blue in the face, whilst they never have any scientific evidence for their claims, simply using templates like below to distort matters, yet keeping you occupied and creating more online content to confuse unsuspecting other readers who in the end can't find truths, but only buckets-full of trash disguised as information. The less exposure you give them, the better.

That's just my opinion

BTW, not for Stonker but for the fanatics: Who needs a template for intentionally spreading disinformation, if you had a valid argument in the first place? (rhetorical)

How to convince.pdf 37.83 kB · 0 downloads

I agree with you entirely, @Bob20.

Unfortunately they've been allowed to take over and dominate this forum, despite being banned from many others, and despite their clearly having no interest in the main focus of the forum which is supposedly Thailand.

Is it better to leave them to make fools of themselves, which the unsuspecting may not notice, or to point out the glaring holes in their dangerous ideas?

I honestly don't know.

[mcambl61]

1 hour ago, Shuddup said:

I sorry clear this up for me . Wouldn’t the all important herd immunity be obtained much much quicker by vaccination than waiting for people to get sick and pass it on to family and friends.

No

[Bob20]

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

I agree with you entirely, @Bob20.

Unfortunately they've been allowed to take over and dominate this forum, despite being banned from many others, and their clearly having no interest in the main focus of the forum which is supposedly Thailand.

Is it better to leave them to make fools of themselves, which the unsuspecting may not notice, or to point out the glaring holes in their dangerous ideas?

I honestly don't know.

I would try to reason with anyone.

Once I know there's no use, why continue?

As you clearly see, they have an agenda to disrupt and spread disinformation and some do it in a structured way, so best not to add to that. That's why one by one I block them and I now get only "sad" likes from them in other topics. Never mind, as long as that's all I see from them then the world is a nicer place without their conspiracies. Better focus on real life.

[mcambl61]

21 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

And that's how you can keep talking until you're blue in the face, whilst they never have any scientific evidence for their claims, simply using templates like below to distort matters, yet keeping you occupied and creating more online content to confuse unsuspecting other readers who in the end can't find truths, but only buckets-full of trash disguised as information. The less exposure you give them, the better.

That's just my opinion

BTW, not for Stonker but for the fanatics: Who needs a template for intentionally spreading disinformation, if you had a valid argument in the first place? (rhetorical)

How to convince.pdf 37.83 kB · 0 downloads

If you are going to be able to be objective, you can't just follow the so called "approved" sources of information that have been repeatedly wrong on several occasions, and obviously have an agenda. 

 

That's not being "fanatics" 

[BlueSphinx]

38 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Let's overlook that Sweden has had twice as many deaths from Covid as Israel, but as asked before, how can the ratio possibly "be far higher" when the amount of covid cases and of vaccinations in Sweden and in Israel are virtually identical???

You are correct, that the % of the population vaccinated in Israel and Sweden is approx same.  So I should not have used that Sweden-Israel example to make the case that when talking 'herd immunity' one needs to distinguish between natural inquired immunity (due to previous infection) and vaccine induced immunity.

[Bob20]

5 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

If you are going to be able to be objective, you can't just follow the so called "approved" sources of information that have been repeatedly wrong on several occasions, and obviously have an agenda. 

That's not being "fanatics" 

I'm not saying science is never wrong.

Science isn't static, it evolves and reshapes.

And I don't advocate following one approved paper.

I advocate following consensus, the collective of research results.

And if I have to take my chances, I will follow consensus any day rather than any unsubstantiated claim from anyone on the internet.

[AdamX]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Really?

This sort of ignorance and fantasy would be funny if people weren't dying as a result of it - one of the most recent being the well-known American radio host and anti-vaxxer Marc Bernier.

His final words in his last tweet before he died of Covid-19: "Get the shot!"

So post-infection immunity "protects against variants" and is "as good as everlasting"? 

That's odd, because the link @AdamX just linked to, albeit indirectly and clearly without reading the study, says the complete opposite!  

So any links to actual studies that say that, rather than to a nut-job repeating another nut-job misquoting a real study which actually contradicts you?

Why do you have to resort to name calling. 

I say, " The data shows X"

You say " You are an ass hat"

This is the lowest form of disagreement

 

 

[BlueSphinx]

25 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Since the full study hasn't been published yet then by definition that's EXACTLY what it qualifies as!

That 25 August submitted study - the largest in its kind - is indeed not yet peer-reviewed.  But don't you think it a little bit over the top to dismiss it as 'unfounded speculation' and not even consider the findings of these ten researchers < see below > that did the study and put their reputation at risk if the methodology they used or the results/conclusions they reached don't survive the 'peer review' test? 

Study submitted by: > Sivan Gazit, MD MA^1,2*; Roei Shlezinger, BA¹; Galit Perez, MN MA²; Roni Lotan, PhD²; Asaf Peretz, MD^1,3; Amir Ben-Tov, MD^1,4; Dani Cohen, PhD⁴; Khitam Muhsen, PhD⁴; Gabriel Chodick, PhD MHA^2,4; Tal Patalon, MD^1,2

¹Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi HealthcareServices, Tel Aviv, 68125, Israel.
² Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.
³Internal Medicine COVID-19 Ward, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod Israel.
⁴Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The vaccines should have ONLY been used for the high-risk groups (mostly elderly with underlying conditions) and that was the sensible Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration. 

No it wasn't!

That's completely and totally untrue, as usual.

The "Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration" was that the vulnerable should be given "Focused Protection" (what's called "Shielded" in the UK) while the rest of the population could "resume life as normal".

 

It was about minimising lockdowns and had nothing at all to do with "ONLY" vaccinating high-risk groups which was never suggested in it at all, in any way.

 

The Great Barrington Declaration has been raised so many times here that misrepresenting it in this way can only be a deliberate and conscious lie - and that's not being abusive or offensive, but simply being realistic.

[BlueSphinx]

21 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

I'm not saying science is never wrong.

Science isn't static, it evolves and reshapes.

And I don't advocate following one approved paper.

I advocate following consensus, the collective of research results.

And if I have to take my chances, I will follow consensus any day rather than any unsubstantiated claim from anyone on the internet.

[Stonker]

3 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

That 25 August submitted study - the largest in its kind - is indeed not yet peer-reviewed.  But don't you think it a little bit over the top to dismiss it as 'unfounded speculation' and not even consider the findings of these ten researchers < see below > that did the study and put their reputation at risk if the methodology they used or the results/conclusions they reached don't survive the 'peer review' test? 

Study submitted by: > Sivan Gazit, MD MA^1,2*; Roei Shlezinger, BA¹; Galit Perez, MN MA²; Roni Lotan, PhD²; Asaf Peretz, MD^1,3; Amir Ben-Tov, MD^1,4; Dani Cohen, PhD⁴; Khitam Muhsen, PhD⁴; Gabriel Chodick, PhD MHA^2,4; Tal Patalon, MD^1,2

¹Kahn Sagol Maccabi (KSM) Research & Innovation Center, Maccabi HealthcareServices, Tel Aviv, 68125, Israel.
² Maccabitech Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Israel.
³Internal Medicine COVID-19 Ward, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod Israel.
⁴Sackler Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

No, it's not about whether it's "peer-reviewed" or not.

 

It's not been published yet, so until it is whatever "results and conclusions they reached" aren't confirmed and ARE "unfounded speculation".

 

That isn't my "dismissing" it, it's simple fact.

 

It's rather like assuming that a leaked report that someone died from a drug overdose was correct, when the subsequent autopsy showed that they had half a dozen plastic bags over their head and they died of asphyxiation.

[AdamX]

55 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Yes.

1. Because you only get natural immunity after you get Covid, which means a lot of vulnerable people (who make up a third or more of the population) would be dead instead of getting natural immunity, which doesn't make it a great option compared to a vax where the chances of it killing you are rather less.

2. Because long Covid, months and possibly years  later, affects far more people than a vax.

3. Because a vax can be boosted very effectively and exponentially  by another vax. Natural immunity can't - a "booster" just acts as a normal jab for those who haven't had a jab before, nothing more.

The question being posed was

Do we need a vax if we have natural immunity?

On that basis, my response to you is 

1. Strawman. The initial condition is that you already have natural immunity

2. Natural immunity is very long lasting, as attested to by the fact that there are still people around that have Spanish flu antibodies. Boosters at this stage are totally pointless and borderline dangerous  if you have natural immunity

3. See answer above

In any case, if we both agree that vax should be optional and not mandatory, we can easily co exist with our respective views.

Right?

 

[Bob20]

26 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

I'm not saying science is never wrong.

Science isn't static, it evolves and reshapes.

And I don't advocate following one approved paper.

I advocate following consensus, the collective of research results.

And if I have to take my chances, I will follow consensus any day rather than any unsubstantiated claim from anyone on the internet.

I see no reply, but I forgot to teach you the definition of fanatic, which you seem to misunderstand.

Please consult some dictionaries (as you don't have to believe just one):

-a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal

-a person exhibiting excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion toward some controversial matter

-a person who is extremely interested in something, to a degree that some peoplefind unreasonable

I think you get the gist of it now.

[AdamX]

7 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-do-not-believe-in-the-collective-wisdom-of-individual-ignorance-thomas-carlyle-55-17-47.jpg

hahahahahahaha

[BlueSphinx]

13 minutes ago, Stonker said:

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The vaccines should have ONLY been used for the high-risk groups (mostly elderly with underlying conditions) and that was the sensible Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration. 

No it wasn't!

That's completely and totally untrue, as usual.

The "Focused Protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration" was that the vulnerable should be given "Focused Protection" (what's called "Shielded" in the UK) while the rest of the population could "resume life as normal".

It was about minimising lockdowns and had nothing at all to do with "ONLY" vaccinating high-risk groups which was never suggested in it at all, in any way.

The Great Barrington Declaration has been raised so many times here that misrepresenting it in this way can only be a deliberate and conscious lie - and that's not being abusive or offensive, but simply being realistic.

What I wrote was clearly IMPLIED in the Great Barrington Declaration.  You are disingenious as usual...

Here an excerpt from that document <  https://gbdeclaration.org/  >

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

 

[Stonker]

27 minutes ago, AdamX said:

Why do you have to resort to name calling. 

I say, " The data shows X"

You say " You are an ass hat"

This is the lowest form of disagreement

It's not merely "name-calling", however much you may like to think it is - it's tier 2 followed by tier 1, refuting the central point of your and @BS's arguments.

The "name-calling" is simply a FOC bonus as I've got bored with constantly doing tier 1 with @BS, whom my comment was addressed to, only for him to come out with more smoke and mirrors, as he has here.

[Stonker]

43 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

You are correct, that the % of the population vaccinated in Israel and Sweden is approx same.  So I should not have used that Sweden-Israel example to make the case that when talking 'herd immunity' one needs to distinguish between natural inquired immunity (due to previous infection) and vaccine induced immunity.

Thank you - can you suggest any other instead?

[BlueSphinx]

7 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, it's not about whether it's "peer-reviewed" or not.

It's not been published yet, so until it is whatever "results and conclusions they reached" aren't confirmed and ARE "unfounded speculation".

That isn't my "dismissing" it, it's simple fact.

It's rather like assuming that a leaked report that someone died from a drug overdose was correct, when the subsequent autopsy showed that they had half a dozen plastic bags over their head and they died of asphyxiation.

Truly pathetic! Ten top scientists putting their reputation on the line by issuing a paper that is not yet peer-reviewed (and which I trust will not change anything to results and conclusions) cannot be compared with a leaked autopsy report of an alleged murder. 

[King Cotton]

Wow, this debate has become massive, both in extent and quality!

Keep it up, Guys . . . it looks like getting the debate of the month award that I'm working on (:-)

[Stonker]

5 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

What I wrote was clearly IMPLIED in the Great Barrington Declaration.  You are disingenious as usual...

Here an excerpt from that document <  https://gbdeclaration.org/  >

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

No it wasn't "clearly IMPLIED" at all.

 

That's an outright and deliberate lie, and a complete mis-representation of what it said.

 

The quote you've cherry picked is the only mention of vaccines in the entire Declaration, and it neither says nor suggests anything about "ONLY" vaccinating high risk groups.

 

You simply deliberately lied about it, as you're continuing to now.

[BlueSphinx]

22 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No it wasn't "clearly IMPLIED" at all.

That's an outright and deliberate lie, and a complete mis-representation of what it said.

The quote you've cherry picked is the only mention of vaccines in the entire Declaration, and it neither says nor suggests anything about "ONLY" vaccinating high risk groups.

You simply deliberately lied about it, as you're continuing to now.

The Great Barrington Declaration is a 1 page document with only 8 paragraphs.  I didn't 'cherry pick' but simply posted the 2 paragraphs of relevance for what we are discussing.

For me it is crystal clear that the 2nd paragraph implies what I stated, as it reads:        The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.

That sentence contains 2 parts:

1 - let those at minimal risk build up immunity through natural infection;

2 - provide better protection to those who are at highest risk.

#2 cannot be interpreted otherwise than vaccinating those highest risk groups, or are you suggesting to better protect them by keeping them isolated forever?

When that double-pronged approach would have been embraced, it would have resulted in a situation in which the largest part of the needed Herd Immunity would have been achieved through natural immunity after infection and with only a small part of Herd Immunity being achieved by vaccine-induced immunity (those at highest risk).  

By having opted for the 'Vaccinate all' approach, reaching 'real' Herd Immunity - which means a return to normal - has become impossible.