I believe, but as I can't find the source hence me not stating it as fact, that 1 in 1,000 suffer some form of side effect from the vaccine. Obviously different severity levels as you'd expect, with different levels of longevity as well, but I think it was in Pfizer's initial report on the trials.
I made a point that we should not be averse to being continued to be vaccinated. You countered that not all levels of society should. I pointed out why perhaps they should feel that necessity. I'll leave it there as we are in danger of disappearing down a pedants rabbit hole.
I'd say you've failed to show where I've been selfish though which is quite a claim to make against someone. I'm just disagreeing that a prolonged six month booster programme, when you consider antibodies, natural immunity, and the double jabbed, isn't quite the slam dunk you claim it should be. Nothing more than that.
Aspiration ? Apparently your supposed to draw back slightly on the needle to make sure your not injecting directly into a vein otherwise it can lead to major complications .
Antibodies, natural immunity, double jabbed.......all protect that person personally. Don't stop them spreading it to anyone else. If commonsense and the likelihood of probability dictated that it was a good idea to be jabbed again to protect your 80 year old granny or your best mate on cancer meds in order to see them, would you?
I think it was actually the clinically trials in New Zealand and then data taken from severe complaints post vaccine in Israel. Sure it said 1 in 1,000 were reporting face drooping which is different to just having a fever for 24 hours and then feeling fine.
Basic medical training but now apparently a new discovery so anti vaxxers can post scaremongering GIFs on Facebook.
Antibodies, double jabbed, and natural immunity all decrease your chances of catching the virus again which in turn will stop you spreading it to anyone else. I'm loathed to quote the recent Israel study as it hasn't been peer reviewed yet, but that showed that natural immunity was 13 times more effective. Other studies show slight favourability towards vaccination, just for balance, and that's around consistency but both last for six months.
So you've chucked in an Israeli red herring that by your own admission hasn't been proven, but not answered my question.
Heard it from an NHS doctor actually . Hope that's not too anti Vax for you . Some good people out there actually trying to educate to make things better . It's a shame too many are too quick to dismiss what could be important points of view . https://www.immunology.org/careers/career-case-studies/prof-john-campbell-phd Here's the guy by the way . Hope he passes your " fit and proper persons test " . Of course you ll get your idiots on Facebook trying discredit anything he says ......
Seems to me the discussion has become simply vaccinated or unvaccinated. Rather than immunity, risk and infectious - these are the drivers of spread of the virus. Talk of changing vaccine status and passports to access certain parts of society is just a punishment designed to force people into having the vaccine and or boosters.
My point was that this isn't new information. The fact he's had to come out and make the point is probably in response to the amount of fake news and misinformation out there.
Irish Times has just reported that the worst performing county for infections is the one that has the highest vaccination numbers. Reason being their natural immunity/antibody levels aren't high enough because not enough people were exposed to it. I've got zero idea what to make of that, but it's the fact we're not even allowed to discuss it that bothers me the most.
Love how you were loath to quote it but managed to go ahead anyway! If you want to look at adverse reactions then look here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...irus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting Are you by any chance confusing him with this guy? https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching/about
Ok? Surely you'd respect someone quoting a scientific study, but being honest enough to say it might not be 100% accurate? I'd normally call that an open minded conversation or a discussion, but it seems those days are banished to the past lately.
Relax Loko - thought it was amusing that's all. I'm more than happy to read the paper myself and come to a conclusion - hell, I'll even read the Irish Times. I'm more than happy to have an open minded conversation - it's the only way to reach common ground. The science of it I can interpret and understand - how this translates into something like COVID passports is another thing. I very strongly agree with vaccination and the data and science supports this. Vaccine passports worry me. Lots of unintended (or even intended consequences)
Come on, you're obviously reasonably intelligent, not one of the knuckledragger posters. You know that's how social media news works. Post a gubbins news link, say it might not be true, but all anyone remembers is the gubbins news link. Job done. But I get it, you're just playing devil's advocate, I've done it myself occasionally