Vaccine propaganda wars!

What's Hot
2

Comments

  • hywelghywelg Frets: 3730
    Years ago the BBC were heavily criticised for doing what some people are here suggesting. They had a proper scientist on to discuss climate change and then for balance they had some nutter, might have been Lord Lawson. 

    They have now revised their guidelines to prevent the same debacle happening again. Where the evidence supports a particular view they will not invite David Icke to provide balance. 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    chris78 said:
    Kilgore said:

    It's been widely known since the 6th century BCE that the world is a globe. Both early and medieval church fathers taught as much.

    Maybe Sky News should invite you on to discuss alternatives to the "approved" narrative of medieval history.  ;)
    Apologies, I was thinking of the church’s belief in the 17th century that the earth was the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it. Wasn’t it Galileo that spent the rest of his life in prison for disagreeing?

    In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts. 

    Giving the views of a 30 year virologist/ epidemiologist and some bloke on you tube with no qualifications equal weight in a discussion is demonstrably mad. 
    If opinions weren’t relevant in science, there would have been no such thing as human progress. There is rarely such thing as “the science.” On covid especially, there are a wide variety of opinions, but those who don’t fit the official narrative are being censored. Imagine we’d listened to “the science” about not ending lockdown. Those scientists who said we were embarking on an immoral experiment look like total twats now along with the scientists predicting 200,000 infections a day and how ever many thousands of deaths a day they said would happen when lockdown ended. Whoops.
    I'm talking specifically about the vaccines here. 

    There is a growing, but vast data set that proves the efficacy of the vaccines, and yes, acknowledges that there are some side effects for some people, but that none of them are bigger risks than CV19 itself. 

    In pure terms, science doesn't have opinions. It has theories, which are then tested before being confirmed, proven wrong, or being revised. 

    The point is, anyone using baseless nonsense that dissuades others from having the vaccines, is going against hard data with no evidence and causing actual harm. 

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 5010
    The point is, anyone using baseless nonsense that dissuades others from having the vaccines, is going against hard data with no evidence and causing actual harm. 

    And especially when those pushing anti vax information are doing so in furtherance of a culture war that has bugger all to do with protecting the public health and everything to do with them trying to grab the reins of power.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    I'm talking specifically about the vaccines here. 

    There is a growing, but vast data set that proves the efficacy of the vaccines, and yes, acknowledges that there are some side effects for some people, but that none of them are bigger risks than CV19 itself. 

    In pure terms, science doesn't have opinions. It has theories, which are then tested before being confirmed, proven wrong, or being revised. 

    The point is, anyone using baseless nonsense that dissuades others from having the vaccines, is going against hard data with no evidence and causing actual harm. 
    That would depend wouldn’t it. The JCVI originally said no to vaccines for 16-18 year olds before political pressure got them to change their mind. They’re still saying a firm no currently to vaccines for 12+ year olds, despite intense pressure from all of the governments, including devolved administrations. Why? Because the risk of vaccine in their view outweighs the risk of covid. Of course, for an 80 year old it’s a totally different equation.
    Now, the odds are that a 25 year old, for example, not having the vaccine won’t do themselves one iota of harm, other than the potential for a very mild illness, which they’ve got a decent chance of also getting from having the vaccine. The only harm they’re doing isn’t to themselves, it’s potentially to other, older, vulnerable individuals. Society traditionally though hasn’t used the young to shield the old.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78 said:
    Society traditionally though hasn’t used the young to shield the old.
    Nah, not true. There was loads of old minging feminists from the 1930's who pressured 15 year old boys to join the army in order to die for their country.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • I think Lylatt Wars is a better name.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • siremoonsiremoon Frets: 1169
    chris78 said:
    Interesting posts from @Legionreturns and @JezWynd ;
    Who gets to decide who has the right view though?
    Every dictatorship always says they’re “protecting” people. 

    People who vote for censorship like this and try and justify it might do well to remember that the church used to burn people at that stake for having “heretical” views including arguing that the world wasn’t flat. 
    In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts. 

    Giving the views of a 30 year virologist/ epidemiologist and some bloke on you tube with no qualifications equal weight in a discussion is demonstrably mad. 
    Except...  I am not a scientist but I am numerate and it was very clear to me from the trajectory of the published data at least a week beforehand that the SAGE advice that there would be 100,000 cases a day by June 21st was just plain wrong (and I posted here to that effect before June 21st).  Also Ferguson has since admitted that he has repeatedly exaggerated the forecast numbers for effect. 

    Being a qualified scientist is all well and good but that doesn't absolve you from producing credible modelling or give you licence for hyperbole.  2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 just because a scientist is saying it.  There's nothing wrong with non-scientists calling out things which were clearly nonsense.
    “He is like a man with a fork in a world of soup.” - Noel Gallagher
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 8reaction image Wisdom
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 3730
    siremoon said:
    chris78 said:
    Interesting posts from @Legionreturns and @JezWynd ;
    Who gets to decide who has the right view though?
    Every dictatorship always says they’re “protecting” people. 

    People who vote for censorship like this and try and justify it might do well to remember that the church used to burn people at that stake for having “heretical” views including arguing that the world wasn’t flat. 
    In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts. 

    Giving the views of a 30 year virologist/ epidemiologist and some bloke on you tube with no qualifications equal weight in a discussion is demonstrably mad. 
    Except...  I am not a scientist but I am numerate and it was very clear to me from the trajectory of the published data at least a week beforehand that the SAGE advice that there would be 100,000 cases a day by June 21st was just plain wrong (and I posted here to that effect before June 21st).  Also Ferguson has since admitted that he has repeatedly exaggerated the forecast numbers for effect. 

    Being a qualified scientist is all well and good but that doesn't absolve you from producing credible modelling or give you licence for hyperbole.  2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 just because a scientist is saying it.  There's nothing wrong with non-scientists calling out things which were clearly nonsense.
    Hindsight is wonderful though isn't it? At the time those predictions were being made the Euros were in full flow and the trajectory of cases was upward and heading for more than 100000 a day. Then 4 days after the final we had 60,000 a day which turned out to be the peak. So all along yawping blokes in pubs was the problem. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RockerRocker Frets: 4338
    Who gives a shit what some people write about vaccines on social media.  Common sense tells us that we need protection from the virus.  Vaccines afford a high level of protection so until something better comes along, vaccines it is.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. [Albert Einstein]

    Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    hywelg said:

    Hindsight is wonderful though isn't it? At the time those predictions were being made the Euros were in full flow and the trajectory of cases was upward and heading for more than 100000 a day. Then 4 days after the final we had 60,000 a day which turned out to be the peak. So all along yawping blokes in pubs was the problem. 
    Maybe the Euros did help transmission. The scientists who made those hopeless predictions certainly want to use it as an excuse for being wrong. The thing is, those predictions have been consistently wrong and yet we've based public policy on it. There is evidence around the world that keeping people locked up doesn't have a massive impact on the virus in the long-term. The countries lauded as being the ones to follow like Australia now look hopeless - the capital has gone into a week lockdown today due to a single case, yup, just one. 
    The lesson has to be that whether it was blokes in pubs or schools or whatever, basing policy on flawed forecasts isn't the way to run things. People like Ferguson have cost the country billions by being wrong, yet he's still in a job informing public policy.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    Once again, for the cheap seats: 

    This is about the vaccines, and the undermining of them by conspiracy theorists. 

    The vaccines work. 

    There are some side effects for some. 

    Neither of these statements is disputable. 

    Lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc are all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether someone should be able to use a public forum to spread misinformation about the vaccines, directly influencing others to reduce the take up and harm society. 

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • hollywoodroxhollywoodrox Frets: 1737
    And this one highlights the hard of thinking nature of some. 

    Imagine thinking a Sci fi film plot is evidence?! 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58164833

    Remember that back in the day there was quite a number of believers who said Close Encounters of the Third Kind and ET were paving the way for a future government to tell the world that we are not alone... 


    I’ve always maintained that the Star Trek series are all documentary /reality shows 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    Once again, for the cheap seats: 

    This is about the vaccines, and the undermining of them by conspiracy theorists. 

    The vaccines work. 

    There are some side effects for some. 

    Neither of these statements is disputable. 

    Lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc are all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether someone should be able to use a public forum to spread misinformation about the vaccines, directly influencing others to reduce the take up and harm society. 
    Apart from the fact you incorrectly stated that opinions aren’t relevant in science so it becomes relevant to explain how many things the so called science has got wrong throughout the pandemic. 
    In relation to the vaccines, it then becomes relevant to debate why there is suppression of data about poor outcomes from the vaccine, the changing of stance from the jcvi on vaccinating children under political pressure and whether a young person who decides to exercise their judgement in not having a vaccine when they have little risk is wrong.
    It also becomes relevant to debate why we are jabbing people with little risk and even planning a possibly unnecessary booster campaign while leaving developing countries without adequate vaccine supply, thus creating conditions for properly scary variants to emerge. That’s not misinformation- the creators of the Oxford vaccine have been saying the same.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • AdeyAdey Frets: 1176
    We always need to be aware that there is a difference between scientific fact and scientific opinion. You can "follow the science", but what are you following?

    It is a scientific fact that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

    It is scientific opinion as to how much is safe to drink when it is in the form of Stella Wife Beater.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    chris78 said:
    Once again, for the cheap seats: 

    This is about the vaccines, and the undermining of them by conspiracy theorists. 

    The vaccines work. 

    There are some side effects for some. 

    Neither of these statements is disputable. 

    Lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc are all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether someone should be able to use a public forum to spread misinformation about the vaccines, directly influencing others to reduce the take up and harm society. 
    Apart from the fact you incorrectly stated that opinions aren’t relevant in science so it becomes relevant to explain how many things the so called science has got wrong throughout the pandemic. 
    No, you've deliberately mis applied my quote. 

    You know full well that what I actually said was in relation to the efficacy of the vaccines. 

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • steven70steven70 Frets: 943
    edited August 12
    Something I found interesting - quite a few (I counted four) of the converted 'Covid/Vaccine Sceptics' featuring in BBC reports appear to have been actors. 

    Please note that I am not saying they are acting or that they are not ill. 

    But it might be the case that propaganda cuts more than one way. If so, I'm sure it's all for the greater good. 

    I won't post names or links - if you are interested this can easily be followed up.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196

    No, you've deliberately mis applied my quote. 

    You know full well that what I actually said was in relation to the efficacy of the vaccines. 
    ‘In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts.“ 

    Thats all you said and I’ve quoted you.

    In relation to vaccine efficacy, I acknowledge this is merely anecdotal, but a client of mine who is 61 and double jabbed called me today to say he had a positive COVID test yesterday and was feeling unwell. It’s odd because you stated “vaccines work” whereas maybe you should have said “vaccines have a high degree of success in preventing hospitalisation and death, though their record isn’t of course perfect as no vaccine ever can be.”
    However, given your focus is on misinformation, it would be useful to hear your view on why a 25 year old who decides not to get jabbed is “harming society” especially as we know that the vaccinated can still pass COVID on. Indeed, my client almost certainly caught it from his vaccinated daughter.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • grungebobgrungebob Frets: 2380
    The degree of viral infection (or viral load)of the delta variant has been deemed to be equal amongst vaccinated and non in the most recent research papers published. 
    As I said in the other thread , there is no real world benefit from vaccinating the under 40’s especially not children. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • thebreezethebreeze Frets: 2024
    What do we make of this then?

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta

    It's an interesting read but one part that's confusing is that they say:

    "As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government."

    But then go on to say:

    "“One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’”

    That doesn't make sense?

    They then go on to say that hospitals will be over run so the answer is to vaccinate everyone with boosters.

    So most of the hospitalised patients are fully vaccinated; answer - let's double down on vaccinations for all.  That doesn't really make sense??  Surely, it's age specific as @grungebob says?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.