Terrible business in Australia.

View: https://youtu.be/ccRudYmg3cs


It's the same sort of conspiratorial, anti-vax, far-right dickheads, all over the place. 'Sovereign Citizens', FFS.
That's really, really horrible. Shooting people come to look for a missing person.

Some conspiracy theories can be very, very dangerous. I read a book a few years ago about how to help a certain type conspiracy minded people before it goes too far into paranoid convictions.

One thing they emphasized in this book was to always take threats very seriously when it comes from these types of people. Since they are certain they are being attacked in different ways, they often feel a moral right, sometimes even obligation, to "defend" themselves. They are almost never regretful or apologetic afterwards, since they feel like they did the right thing.
 
Has there been a case where anti vax people went on a shoot out? AFAIK they just dont want vaxxing of themselves and their children.
 
Who cares? It doesn't make them less retarded.
It matters because if they are harmless to others as opposed to the super conspiracy theorists, you are going to push them towards the other resulting in the anti-vaxxers joining that group. Much like how the middle left joined the right wing and right wing joined the far right.

Its textbook how you divide people into something more dangerous.
 
In my experience, the people who are 100% anti-vax are already pretty far down the spectrum.
I agree. Since it doesn't make much sense to be totally against vaccines, it is not a good predictor of rational behavior in other circumstances.

I can understand the initial skepticism of the new vaccines due to them being new. But now they've been given to millions (maybe billions?) of people and very few serious side effects have popped up.

Conspiratorial people tend to see the lack of damning scientific reports and lack of catastrophes as evidence of a cover up, which is not very rational thinking.
 
As I have said I dont remember anti vaxxers killing people, maybe I am wrong. And the anti vaxxer label has been put on people who are just against the MRNA vaccines or at least this one for covid. There is exhaustive evidence for that one but that would have to be in that other thread.
 
Great some nice generalizations I'm reading but it's to be expected given half of the US wants every republican dead or silenced. Guess I better suit up and go shoot people.

That's sarcasm by the way as I have whats called impulse control. Research that please. It will explain why some people go out and commit mass shootings not ideology.
 
I agree. Since it doesn't make much sense to be totally against vaccines, it is not a good predictor of rational behavior in other circumstances.

I can understand the initial skepticism of the new vaccines due to them being new. But now they've been given to millions (maybe billions?) of people and very few serious side effects have popped up.

Conspiratorial people tend to see the lack of damning scientific reports and lack of catastrophes as evidence of a cover up, which is not very rational thinking.
You might want to check out this story about side effects:
 
You might want to check out this story about side effects:
Not very convincing. Yeah, serious adverse effects happen and they are reported if people tell them to the hospital, or if the person is part of a study.

The doctor interviewed is cherry picking information. The PEI information they claim shows the risk of the vaccines says this:

  • "The reporting rate of suspected cases for all vaccines together was 1.8 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses, for suspected cases of serious adverse reactions and vaccine complications 0.3 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.
  • The reporting rate after booster vaccinations was lower for the two mRNA vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax than after basic immunisation.
  • Individual cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis were reported after Nuvaxovid, including a few cases from Germany.
  • An evaluation of reports of chronic fatigue syndrome and long COVID-like complaints to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut and a comparison with international reports in the adverse reaction database at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) did not reveal any risk signal up to the date of this evaluation.
  • The latter also applies to an evaluation of suspected case reports from Germany on a wide variety of cycle disorders in women of childbearing age and seizures after COVID-19 vaccines."
They also have a FAQ with a very, very large number of questions answered:

Are the COVID-19 vaccines safe, even though they have been developed so quickly?​


The short development time for the current COVID-19 vaccine candidates was possible thanks to a number of factors:
  • Knowledge of the potentially protective antigen from previous work on vaccines for SARS-CoV in 2002/2003 and MERS-CoV
  • Application and further development of new vaccine technologies
  • Some otherwise preclinical trials were carried out in parallel to clinical trials
  • Performance of overlapping phase 1/2 and phase 2/3 trials
  • Regulatory guidance through intensive and in some cases repeated scientific advice
  • Rolling review at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut and at the European Medicines Agency (EMA)
  • High level of focus and generous financial support from the German Federal Government, the European Commission and global charitable foundations which also enabled large-scale manufacture to commence prior to marketing authorisation
  • Worldwide cooperation, e.g. at the level of the WHO and the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Agencies (ICMRA)
  • For the marketing authorisation of the COVID-19 vaccines, data was evaluated from between 20,000 and almost 40,000 study participants. This allowed extensive information to be gained on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
The follow-up monitoring of the study participants does not end with marketing authorisation. They will be actively monitored over a period of up to two years as part of the ongoing clinical trials tied to the authorisation process. One of the reasons for doing this is to evaluate how long the efficacy of the vaccination will last.
In general, however, it is the case with COVID-19 vaccines, as with all other new vaccines and therapeutic medicinal products, that not all very rare adverse reactions can be recorded at the time of marketing authorisation. For this reason, the safety of vaccines, like that of other newly authorised medicinal products, continues to be checked after marketing authorisation. One element of this follow-up monitoring (surveillance) is, for example, the analysis of spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions or vaccination complications. For the pandemic COVID-19 vaccines, other studies are also being carried out, including active safety studies.

Updated: 01.06.2022

Do we need to fear long-term effects of vaccines that occur years after vaccination?​


Decades of experience has shown that most vaccine side effects occur within a few hours or a few days after a vaccination. In rare cases, vaccine side effects occur or are recognised only after weeks or a few months.
The first available COVID-19 vaccines in Europe were authorised in late 2020 or early 2021 and have been in general use since. The first clinical trials began several months before authorisation. Since then, the vaccines have been administrated millions or even billions of times. These vaccines and their side effects are now well known - including very rare side effects.

Further Information​

Updated: 01.06.2022

What are long-term effects anyway?​


There are two possibilities of what is meant by the term "long-term effects". Something that only occurs after a long time, or something that lasts over a long period of time.
A desirable long-term consequence of vaccination in the sense of a long-lasting effect is protection against infection or serious illness. For some people, this protection even lasts for life - for example, with the measles vaccination. For other vaccinations, such as against influenza - and according to the current status also against COVID-19 - booster vaccinations are necessary. Together, however, the vaccinations lead to continuous protection against the pathogen.
In individual cases, even very rare vaccination complications can last a long time, possibly years. However, this is the absolute exception. An example of such an extremely rare side effect with a long-term effect is the very rare occurrence of narcolepsy after vaccination against swine flu in 2009/2010 and is an absolute exception. Here, too, the first indications of this vaccination complication occurred only a few months after the start of the vaccinations.
Concerned citizens understand long-term consequences - often also called late effects - to mean side effects that occur only after a delay of many months or years after vaccination. These concerns are unjustified. We are not aware of such very late-onset side effects of vaccines.

Tl;dr: Serious adverse effects happen, tough rarely. A large majority of them appear shortly after the shot (hours to a few days) and are therefore often recorded and followed up.



Things can go wrong (like with all vaccines), but the risk from the disease is more dangerous for the vast majority of people. Even now, when the mutations have made the symptoms milder, there's a lot of people in hospitals, and a few unlucky (or very old) people take months to years to recuperate completely. Compare that with the amount of people in hospitals or needing long term care for the vaccine and it's pretty clear what is more likely to cause harm.
 
Not very convincing. Yeah, serious adverse effects happen and they are reported if people tell them to the hospital, or if the person is part of a study.
This is "absolutely false" both VAERS and Yellow card scheme mention that actual side effects reported are only a fraction of adverse affects that happen. Yellow card is only about 10% reported for serious side effects and 2-4% for minor side effects. VEARS doesnt even give a number, just varies greatly:
"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

The doctor interviewed is cherry picking information. The PEI information they claim shows the risk of the vaccines says this:

  • "The reporting rate of suspected cases for all vaccines together was 1.8 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses, for suspected cases of serious adverse reactions and vaccine complications 0.3 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.
  • The reporting rate after booster vaccinations was lower for the two mRNA vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax than after basic immunisation.
  • Individual cases of myocarditis and/or pericarditis were reported after Nuvaxovid, including a few cases from Germany.
  • An evaluation of reports of chronic fatigue syndrome and long COVID-like complaints to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut and a comparison with international reports in the adverse reaction database at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) did not reveal any risk signal up to the date of this evaluation.
  • The latter also applies to an evaluation of suspected case reports from Germany on a wide variety of cycle disorders in women of childbearing age and seizures after COVID-19 vaccines."
They also have a FAQ with a very, very large number of questions answered:
I have a feeling this is misleading. They didnt split the adverse effects over different vaccines implying the vaccines have the same adverse effects ration. And of course people who have had serious adverse effects are hesistant after the first time getting one. Novavax is the safest vaccine and they single that out for the myocarditis and/or pericarditis reports.

The yellow card data shows:

As of 23 November 2022, (UK)
Pfizer/BioNTech, monovalent and bivalent 177,925 Yellow Cards have been reported
AstraZeneca 246,866 have been reported
Moderna, monovalent and bivalent 47,045 have been reported
Novavax 52 reports
Brand of vaccine was not specified 2,130 reports Total reports 474,018
Overall reporting rate Around 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered In the 28 days
Pfizer/BioNTech, + 2,499 reports
AstraZeneca, + 228
Moderna, + 1,099
Novavax, + 15
Brand not specified, + 154

So taking the under reporting into account it is about 4 million adverse effects from the vaccines in UK alone.(taking off a bit for the 2-4% of minor adverse effects)
Are the COVID-19 vaccines safe, even though they have been developed so quickly?

The short development time for the current COVID-19 vaccine candidates was possible thanks to a number of factors:
  • Knowledge of the potentially protective antigen from previous work on vaccines for SARS-CoV in 2002/2003 and MERS-CoV
  • Application and further development of new vaccine technologies
  • Some otherwise preclinical trials were carried out in parallel to clinical trials
  • Performance of overlapping phase 1/2 and phase 2/3 trials
  • Regulatory guidance through intensive and in some cases repeated scientific advice
  • Rolling review at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut and at the European Medicines Agency (EMA)
  • High level of focus and generous financial support from the German Federal Government, the European Commission and global charitable foundations which also enabled large-scale manufacture to commence prior to marketing authorisation
  • Worldwide cooperation, e.g. at the level of the WHO and the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Agencies (ICMRA)
  • For the marketing authorisation of the COVID-19 vaccines, data was evaluated from between 20,000 and almost 40,000 study participants. This allowed extensive information to be gained on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
The follow-up monitoring of the study participants does not end with marketing authorisation. They will be actively monitored over a period of up to two years as part of the ongoing clinical trials tied to the authorisation process. One of the reasons for doing this is to evaluate how long the efficacy of the vaccination will last.
In general, however, it is the case with COVID-19 vaccines, as with all other new vaccines and therapeutic medicinal products, that not all very rare adverse reactions can be recorded at the time of marketing authorisation. For this reason, the safety of vaccines, like that of other newly authorised medicinal products, continues to be checked after marketing authorisation. One element of this follow-up monitoring (surveillance) is, for example, the analysis of spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions or vaccination complications. For the pandemic COVID-19 vaccines, other studies are also being carried out, including active safety studies.

Updated: 01.06.2022

Do we need to fear long-term effects of vaccines that occur years after vaccination?​


Decades of experience has shown that most vaccine side effects occur within a few hours or a few days after a vaccination. In rare cases, vaccine side effects occur or are recognised only after weeks or a few months.
The first available COVID-19 vaccines in Europe were authorised in late 2020 or early 2021 and have been in general use since. The first clinical trials began several months before authorisation. Since then, the vaccines have been administrated millions or even billions of times. These vaccines and their side effects are now well known - including very rare side effects.

Further Information​

Updated: 01.06.2022

What are long-term effects anyway?​


There are two possibilities of what is meant by the term "long-term effects". Something that only occurs after a long time, or something that lasts over a long period of time.
A desirable long-term consequence of vaccination in the sense of a long-lasting effect is protection against infection or serious illness. For some people, this protection even lasts for life - for example, with the measles vaccination. For other vaccinations, such as against influenza - and according to the current status also against COVID-19 - booster vaccinations are necessary. Together, however, the vaccinations lead to continuous protection against the pathogen.
In individual cases, even very rare vaccination complications can last a long time, possibly years. However, this is the absolute exception. An example of such an extremely rare side effect with a long-term effect is the very rare occurrence of narcolepsy after vaccination against swine flu in 2009/2010 and is an absolute exception. Here, too, the first indications of this vaccination complication occurred only a few months after the start of the vaccinations.
Concerned citizens understand long-term consequences - often also called late effects - to mean side effects that occur only after a delay of many months or years after vaccination. These concerns are unjustified. We are not aware of such very late-onset side effects of vaccines.

Tl;dr: Serious adverse effects happen, tough rarely. A large majority of them appear shortly after the shot (hours to a few days) and are therefore often recorded and followed up.



Things can go wrong (like with all vaccines), but the risk from the disease is more dangerous for the vast majority of people. Even now, when the mutations have made the symptoms milder, there's a lot of people in hospitals, and a few unlucky (or very old) people take months to years to recuperate completely. Compare that with the amount of people in hospitals or needing long term care for the vaccine and it's pretty clear what is more likely to cause harm.

This part is a very big can of worms, the problem is the breadth of long term effects that are possible from the MRNA vax. Any thing i say about this will be only a fraction of the problems that are being revealed yearly, its a bit premature to talk about this one specifically. I just know main problem is that the used the full spike protein in the MRNA vaccines, and that is not benign.
 

Mind you don't get dragged into an interminable flat-Earth debate situation. There is always more misinformation, ignorance, and half-baked reasoning. I call it fractal bullshit.
 
Yeah, I won't spend much more time on it. Just thought I'd write something with actual links, so that people who might read the above and are on the fence don't fall too deep into the rabbit hole.
 

Mind you don't get dragged into an interminable flat-Earth debate situation. There is always more misinformation, ignorance, and half-baked reasoning. I call it fractal bullshit.
So smug... What are the long term effects, if any? OH that's right, we've got no fucking clue. The testing was fast-tracked and long term studies simply weren't done. Shall we call your gambit cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply willful ignorance?
 
So smug... What are the long term effects, if any? OH that's right, we've got no fucking clue. The testing was fast-tracked and long term studies simply weren't done. Shall we call your gambit cherry-picking, gaslighting, or simply willful ignorance?
Call it what you like. I'm just advising people who I respect not to get drawn in by what I consider to be bad faith behavior and trolling. Not even advice really - I'm quite sure other folks can see what I see, and it's more just a quick reminder, 'watch out - they're good at drawing people in.' If it's smug to think that some things are too silly to engage with, I think we're all smug in that way.

It's not any kind of gambit - there's people who will see what I'm saying, and those that won't. That's fine with me.
 
Yeah, I won't spend much more time on it. Just thought I'd write something with actual links, so that people who might read the above and are on the fence don't fall too deep into the rabbit hole.

You just posted something that is akin to "how to lie with statistics". I had to call you out on it. Its my pet peeve.
 
Would you not agree that bringing in Flat Earthers, et al as a point of comparison might be a bit over the top? Your disdain largely sets on a "can't prove a negative" fallacy and this is fairly easily demonstrated as well beyond the Dumb and Dumber "so there's a chance" situation.
 
Would you not agree that bringing in Flat Earthers, et al as a point of comparison might be a bit over the top? Your disdain largely sets on a "can't prove a negative" fallacy and this is fairly easily demonstrated as well beyond the Dumb and Dumber "so there's a chance" situation.
No, my disdain rests on a sustained pattern of behavior that leads me to draw the conclusion that this is not someone posting in a good faith and serious way - it has nothing to do with proving a negative. I'm saying that I think engaging with these shenanigans is not likely to lead to any kind of sensible conversation.

If you want to say that we don't know the 'long term' effects of a vaccine, that's true, but it's true of all sorts of things. We don't know the long term effects of 5G (or 4G or 3G for that matter), but that doesn't mean we should engage with trolling based on paranoid fantasies and misinformation. What's being peddled here is a tired and debunked antivax playbook, and engaging with it will get you nowhere. If someone seriously wants to determine the risks of a new vaccine (or any medicine), they need to listen to the signal, not the noise.
 
Last edited:
If you want to say that we don't know the 'long term' effects of a vaccine, that's true, but it's true of all sorts of things. We don't know the long term effects of 5G (or 4G or 3G for that matter), but that doesn't mean we should engage with trolling based on paranoid fantasies and misinformation.
Ah, but see, you're contradicting yourself right there. If you agree that something is true, why would you equate it with trolling, and how do you get around declaring something you stipulate as true to to be "based on paranoid fantasies and misinformation"? Just because you don't like what it does to the narrative you prefer, or because it's entertaining to belittle the opposition, or perhaps it's just time-honored silencing of minority opinions?

I'm reminded of my college days. If you only have to throw out half the data to get the answer you want, it's a good lab report. :)
 
Well, if we're resorting to italics, I think it's worth pointing out the parts I wrote before and after the bit you cropped out:

No, my disdain rests on a sustained pattern of behavior that leads me to draw the conclusion that this is not someone posting in a good faith and serious way - it has nothing to do with proving a negative. I'm saying that I think engaging with these shenanigans is not likely to lead to any kind of sensible conversation.

... bit you quoted ...

What's being peddled here is a tired and debunked antivax playbook, and engaging with it will get you nowhere. If someone seriously wants to determine the risks of a new vaccine (or any medicine), they need to listen to the signal, not the noise.


I'm trying to make it clear that my problem is with this particular instance, because of the pattern I believe to be trolling in several threads (last week it was 'Kanye for President'). Of course I'm not saying that the statement "we cannot know the very long term effects of a vaccine produced two years ago" is trolling, because it's an obviously true statement that a reasonable person might make in the course of a good faith conversation. But, IMO, this is not that, and that impression is compounded by the use of well-known antivaxxer shenanigans.

If there were sensible folks that wanted to have a real discussion about the vaccines and evidence of any harm, that would be fine by me - I'm not interested in shutting down honest debate. I just think it's very hard to have that sensible discussion unless folks can filter out the flat-Earth, fractal bullshit element.