C_J The associated reduction in viral load and duration in vaccinated people helps to reduce spread. It doesn’t eliminate spread, but it does reduce it.

      Funky Spreading misinformation helps no one and certainly doesn’t support your position,

          303abuser exactly don’t spread it. What i said is still ongoing in Canada to be able to work you idiot and again you’re shit about vital load is flawed as fuck but you are too dumb closed minded to you’re own bias to see it, that is misinforming right there.

          Hursty is 100% spot on esp when covid is barely a thing now. Halt it and do the necessary investigations before we lose more young people.

              Funky You keep making assertions about things you don’t understand. Saying you can’t hold a job in Canada without being vaccinated isn’t government mandated, any cases where that is true is because an employer has made a decision that best fits their business. I live here, so I think my grasp of the situation is far better than yours.

              As for the reduction in viral load and symptom durationfor vaccinated individuals who contract covid, that’s been confirmed in countless studies. That’s not an opinion, it’s fact. No idea why I’m bothering though, if you haven’t figured out how to read and comprehend any of published science in 3 years, I’m obviously not going to change your mind.

                  303abuser it’s flawed by many many factors you are being idiotic. You need 4 a year to stop any sort of spread. If the spread was reduced drastically back then I would agree with you but it didn’t reduce, social distancing the first 4 months of it actually worked but once vaccine came into play every knob end let their guard done by the misinformation the government and scientists supplied. Some scientific studies can be completely corupted too you know.

                  So you don’t agree mrna vaccine should be halted? Pending investigations?

                      303abuser well….. not according to the bmj article that Grant provided

                      “Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body.”

                      that article also makes the point that evidence for vaccines reducing the spread is mixed at best, and quite weak with regards the later variants.

                      my conclusions from this are 1. people who state “vaccines reduce the spread” as though it were a fact are effectively spreading misinformation and 2. there are a lot of anxious and concerned people at the moment who probably feel like they were coerced and possibly even misled into having a medical procedure that has harmed them.

                      personally i think it’s likely to be overblown and the risk of problems is probably still too low to make it anything other than a no-brainer to get vaccinated, in general and for most people at least.

                      but i remain steadfastly neutral and open-minded on the subject and i do believe the nexus is probably shifting a little here in favour of the anti-vax crew.

                          Funky None of that makes even a little bit of sense, so I’m just going to ignore it.

                          What reason is there to halt a successful vaccine? I’m all for continued study and changing policy in conjunction with new information, but we currently have a vaccine that is infinitely safer than the virus it protects against. And for the record, I’m actually asking the question, it’s not rhetorical. What evidence is there that would warrant a suspension of a vaccine that has saved millions of lives, either directly or indirectly, by reducing stress on healthcare systems around the world?

                              303abuser How about you ‘read the science’:

                              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

                              "Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

                                  C_J my conclusions from this are 1. people who state “vaccines reduce the spread” as though it were a fact are effectively spreading misinformation and 2. there are a lot of anxious and concerned people at the moment who probably feel like they were coerced and possibly even misled into having a medical procedure that has harmed them.

                                  It does reduce spread (not prevent it), even if that effectiveness is dropping with new variants. That’s a true statement until that no longer occurs. Efficacy is obviously important though, so I get the point.

                                  How many people have had adverse reactions to the vaccine vs. how many would have had adverse reactions to the virus is the comparison we need to look at. From an individual perspective, perfect would be to have no adverse reactions to a vaccine, but with 8 billion people, there are going to be outliers. There’s no way to combat that, so we need to accept some individual risk to benefit the group, that’s what a society is. Shared responsibility, shared risk, and shared outcomes.

                                  I think we’re mostly saying the same thing when it comes to continued study and that it’s likely a no-brained decision, but nothing is shifting in favour of the anti-vax crew, as even if they turn out to be right about certain things, none of it came from scientific rigor.

                                  • C_J replied to this.

                                      C_J i do believe the nexus is probably shifting a little here in favour of the anti-vax crew.

                                      I agree. Anyone who can’t see it is sticking their fingers in their eyes and shouting ‘ANTI-VAXXER!’ incessantly.

                                        303abuser 1 in 800 according to that cardiologist could get adverse effects. People with conditions related to cardioapathy are the ones most at risk that could be across all ages. Covid now is same as the flu when it comes to the stats, if there was 1 in 800 risk of adverse effects the flu jab would be halted ASAP no doubt.

                                        Use the bloody AZ vaccine until the investigations are done so you’re argument there is complete common sense out the fkn window.

                                            Nothing wrong with doing more analysis, as the conclusion to the stuff Dave posted says.

                                            Plenty wrong with saying ‘Stop the Rollout’ based on a small slice of information, tin foil shite.

                                            Be interesting to compare the stats Dave posted to that of other vaccines as opposed to placebos.

                                            bosstrabs From that link:

                                            Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

                                            This basically supports my position, no? There could be risk of adverse outcomes from the vaccine and further research needs to be done to determine whether or not that risk outweighs the risks from covid infection.

                                            It’s extremely unlikely, but if they came out with irrefutable evidence tomorrow that the vaccine is more harmful than the virus, I’d happily change my stance on this. I’m in full support of letting the evidence lead policy and the decision we make around this mess. It’s complicated. Our understanding of how the body works and medicine in general is so far beyond what we knew even 50 years ago and is likely light years behind what we’ll know 100 years from now. Combine that with dramatic individual variance and none of this is simple.

                                              303abuser but we currently have a vaccine that is infinitely safer than the virus it protects against.

                                              It absolutely doesn’t support the position you set out here.

                                                  303abuser it reduces the number of infections which reduces the spread but it induces behaviours that have the opposite effect. So they reduce the spread of the virus all other things being equal. Maybe this is a trivial distinction, maybe it isn’t.

                                                  say you had a known risk of cardiomyopathy from the vax of 0.1% and the risk of death from covid was like ten times that. I still reckon people would rather avoid the vax there because a) folks are not strictly rational and b) they might feel they can move the odds in their favour. So it’s not necessarily only about the raw math of it, it’s also about the asymmetry of information and the conflict of interests involved.

                                                  Right?

                                                      Funky I’ll say it again, the comparison isn’t between adverse reactions to the vaccine vs. not getting the vaccine, it’s getting the vaccine vs. getting covid. If it turns out the risks of the vaccine outweighs the risks from covid, then change the policy. Currently, that evidence doesn’t exist.

                                                      Funky Covid now is same as the flu when it comes to the stats

                                                      What does that mean? My province is averaging roughly 4 deaths per day from covid now, down from 7 per day about a month ago. The flu stats aren’t anywhere near that number. Or are you referring to something else?

                                                      Funky Use the bloody AZ vaccine until the investigations are done so you’re argument there is complete common sense out the fkn window.

                                                      I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.

                                                              bosstrabs Their conclusion is that there are adverse reactions from the vaccine in certain cases and that more research is needed. What am I missing? (Again, that’s an honest question, maybe I’m reading it wrong)

                                                                  303abuser Their conclusion is that there are adverse reactions from the vaccine in certain cases and that more research is needed. What am I missing? (Again, that’s an honest question, maybe I’m reading it wrong)

                                                                  “The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).”