• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pro-choice and antivaxers. There's a difference.

exchemist

Veteran Member
Thats not comparing it to/with someone who has already had it is it?
Oh I see. No. I misunderstood. Sorry.

I don't think I've seens any comparisons of the levels of immunity conferred by survival after infection compared to vaccination. That would be quite a hard study to do properly. There have been attempts to compare antibody levels I think, but as that does not take into account memory cell response it would be misleading on its own.

What I have read is that the degree of immune response stimulated by infection can vary widely, depending on how badly you get infected. Whereas the immunity from vaccination is uniformly pretty good.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Or, let's look at places like Missouri that have low vaccination rate. Covid is still raging in those places. It doesn't matter what "camp," the unvaccinated (period) are THE reason this is still an issue. If everybody got vaccinated we'd be past this and moving beyond it. But we're still stuck because of people who, for one reason or another, would rather act irresponsibly and put themselves above the needs of so many others and give tons and loads and endless excuses to not do what they should.

There are many states with less than Missouri 40%. Oklahoma 39% while California 52%. Several in the mid 30%
Only six states are in 60%. None in 70%.

States ranked by percentage of population fully vaccinated: July 27
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Those who won't get vaxxed are the same people who stick their heads beneath the sneeze guards and use their hands instead of tongs at buffets.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Pro-choice are people who are not at a comfortable point yet for reasons such a not FDA approved, have had covid, etc.

Anti-vaxers won't ever take it. They say it will make you sick or kill you. Has a chip in it, etc.

Know the difference and the reasons why someone hasn't took the vaccine yet instead of attacking and falsely accusing them.
Despite my stance I can sympathise with the position of hesitancy. It’s a brand new vaccine, the boffins raced each other to see who can make it and who’s is the most efficient. Side affects later spring up, seemingly. I get that it can seem scary. But we might not have the privilege to be skeptical for very long. At the rate my country is going, by the time we vaccinate 90% of the population another new deadlier strain will force us to start from scratch. I mean things are seemingly desperate for the southern states here right now. With health recommendations even changing based on the low supply of Pfizer vs AstraZeneca. I think they’re looking at stretching out the “in between” periods for the shots just to hold onto as much supply for as long as possible.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Or, let's look at places like Missouri that have low vaccination rate. Covid is still raging in those places. It doesn't matter what "camp," the unvaccinated (period) are THE reason this is still an issue. If everybody got vaccinated we'd be past this and moving beyond it. But we're still stuck because of people who, for one reason or another, would rather act irresponsibly and put themselves above the needs of so many others and give tons and loads and endless excuses to not do what they should.

If you want a simple example, look to Sydney. They had basically no COVID, but very low rates of vaccination (similar to my state, Victoria). A Delta-strain outbreak occurred in Sydney, and some people crossed-border to Victoria, which also then had an outbreak.
Victoria went into a strict lockdown immediately, limiting movement, and allowing for limited reasons for being outside the home. Hard on people's mental health, and tough economically, but our case numbers are back to 0 (in terms of community transmission per day).

Sydney went into 'lockdown-lite', which really wasn't lockdown at all. More like...ya know...try to stay home, unless you want to visit family, or go get your retail therapy on. Their cases are increasing on the daily, and there are some real fears they're going to have to live with COVID in the community now.

In both cases, higher rates of vaccination might have enabled us to control the outbreaks without a hard lockdown (in Victoria's case) or to some degree (in Sydney's case). But whilst our COVID management and rates of infection have been world-leading, our vaccination program has been horrendously slow, and we're paying the price for it.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Despite my stance I can sympathise with the position of hesitancy. It’s a brand new vaccine, the boffins raced each other to see who can make it and who’s is the most efficient. Side affects later spring up, seemingly. I get that it can seem scary. But we might not have the privilege to be skeptical for very long. At the rate my country is going, by the time we vaccinate 90% of the population another new deadlier strain will force us to start from scratch. I mean things are seemingly desperate for the southern states here right now. With health recommendations even changing based on the low supply of Pfizer vs AstraZeneca. I think they’re looking at stretching out the “in between” periods for the shots just to hold onto as much supply for as long as possible.

This isn't about vaccination, per se. But I have the 'joy' of sometimes managing complex projects, sometimes assisting businesses with strategic decision-making, etc. (Can you imagine? People pay me to help them make complex decision? Sheesh.)

In any case, people commonly measure the risk of doing something. What happens if I reduce my workforce by 10%? What if I increase it? What if I digitize records? What if I take this vaccine?
What some people forget to do is to treat the status quo in EXACTLY the same way. What happens if I keep my workforce at current levels (ie. 'Do Nothing'). What if I keep my records in the file, exactly where they are right now? What if I don't take the vaccine? What if no ones does?

It seems obvious, but too often, people see the status quo as the 'safe' choice. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
But in relation to decisions, that doesn't hold water. The ONLY advantage the status-quo has is that you have hard evidence on what it's impact has been in the past. And that's best case (since it gets very hard to separate what has caused which issue or advantage, in reality).

In 2010, I wasn't vaccinated for COVID, and I was fine.
2011, same. 2020, same. Although not everyone could say that. 2021? Fine, so far.

So what's that mean for 2022? Not much at all, honestly. Anti-vaxers...or even those hesitant...should be putting their non-decision to the same scrutiny as vaccination. Although, in truth, the way some of these folk approach research worries me. Still...there are credible reasons to be concerned about vaccines. There are also credible reasons to use them. And if someone is actually trying to make a decision (rather than justify a decision already made) they should be completely across both. If they're not, I really don't take their 'hesitancy' seriously, and would suggest they should support the rest of the community instead of being special snowflakes.

Just my take.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Despite my stance I can sympathise with the position of hesitancy. It’s a brand new vaccine, the boffins raced each other to see who can make it and who’s is the most efficient. Side affects later spring up, seemingly. I get that it can seem scary. But we might not have the privilege to be skeptical for very long. At the rate my country is going, by the time we vaccinate 90% of the population another new deadlier strain will force us to start from scratch. I mean things are seemingly desperate for the southern states here right now. With health recommendations even changing based on the low supply of Pfizer vs AstraZeneca. I think they’re looking at stretching out the “in between” periods for the shots just to hold onto as much supply for as long as possible.
It's a very difficult call because long term studies have not been done, and some warnings are coming from very credible sources that the new technology implemented in the mRNA vaccines is completely untested, long term. Some studies (not made public) have discovered that these vaccines are actually doing what they are not supposed to do theoretically, and being deposited in places where they are not supposed to go. This has some health professionals worried about serious future outcomes. Weighing risks and balances is difficult. I am unconvinced at this time and will remain so until I am convinced that the cure is not potentially worse than the complaint. I don't trust huge corporations driven by profit to put the best interests of the public ahead of their bottom line.

Only a very small percentage of people who come down with C19 get much sicker than a good dose of the flu, recovering at home and not needing hospitalization or ventilators. So using the same principle given for the risk of blood clots in the AZ vaccine, we should be able to make our own choice in this. If you know the risk but are willing to take it.....it should be our right to refuse what we have no faith in.

What else gets to me is suppression of information that can be beneficial to everyone but the drug companies who have spent $billions in order to make $billions more out of this pandemic. The biggest suppression is that of Ivermectin. A drug unrelated to the flu, but which has been trialed and tested in countries where vaccines are not as affordable as they are in wealthier nations. This cheap drug has been shown to accomlplish all that the vaccine is supposed to be able to do, but without the risks because it has been around since the 80's and is already approved for human use.

Frontline health workers were at risk and with not enough vaccines to go around some were chosen for a trial using Ivermectin, not only as a treatment for the virus, but also in reducing transmission. This it did for all strains. If this is a proven and effective treatment and preventative with peer reviewed studies already done, then why are we not hearing about this drug? Why is it not offered as a safer alternative to the vaccines? I think we can all do the math.....pro-choice should include all potential treatments, especially if the trials have already shown positive outcomes in its effectiveness?

Craig Kelly brought this out in a speech he made in our (Australian) Parliament recently......he has the data and the study results...but I'll wager not many people will even get to hear what he said or take him seriously because of media sabotage of his credibility. Many might not like the cut of his jib, but if he has the goods, why not allow him present them? Let the evidence speak for itself....and challenge the evidence rather than just shooting the messenger....?
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
I only got the vaccine so that I could go back to working out everyday at the gym without putting my family at risk, particularly my dad who I visit every weekend to go play chess.

I was devastated over how much strength I’d lost from not having access to the equipment I used to use all the time. It was the longest break from the gym I’d ever taken since I started lifting as a teenager. There is only so much I could do at home so I had to start going back. I did not want to take the vaccine and I hope to God I do not regret it later down the road.

For those who are undecided, I respect your decision either way.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I only got the vaccine so that I could go back to working out everyday at the gym without putting my family at risk, particularly my dad who I visit every weekend to go play chess.

I was devastated over how much strength I’d lost from not having access to the equipment I used to use all the time. It was the longest break from the gym I’d ever taken since I started lifting as a teenager. There is only so much I could do at home so I had to start going back. I did not want to take the vaccine and I hope to God I do not regret it later down the road.

For those who are undecided, I respect your decision either way.
As long as you have antibodies that's what's Important.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pro-choice are people who are not at a comfortable point yet for reasons such a not FDA approved, have had covid, etc.

Anti-vaxers won't ever take it. They say it will make you sick or kill you. Has a chip in it, etc.

Know the difference and the reasons why someone hasn't took the vaccine yet instead of attacking and falsely accusing them.
They're just momentary anti-vaxers....not the die-hard
loonies fearing nano-bots re-writing their DNA.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's a very difficult call because long term studies have not been done, and some warnings are coming from very credible sources that the new technology implemented in the mRNA vaccines is completely untested, long term. Some studies (not made public) have discovered that these vaccines are actually doing what they are not supposed to do theoretically, and being deposited in places where they are not supposed to go. This has some health professionals worried about serious future outcomes. Weighing risks and balances is difficult. I am unconvinced at this time and will remain so until I am convinced that the cure is not potentially worse than the complaint. I don't trust huge corporations driven by profit to put the best interests of the public ahead of their bottom line.

Only a very small percentage of people who come down with C19 get much sicker than a good dose of the flu, recovering at home and not needing hospitalization or ventilators. So using the same principle given for the risk of blood clots in the AZ vaccine, we should be able to make our own choice in this. If you know the risk but are willing to take it.....it should be our right to refuse what we have no faith in.

What else gets to me is suppression of information that can be beneficial to everyone but the drug companies who have spent $billions in order to make $billions more out of this pandemic. The biggest suppression is that of Ivermectin. A drug unrelated to the flu, but which has been trialed and tested in countries where vaccines are not as affordable as they are in wealthier nations. This cheap drug has been shown to accomlplish all that the vaccine is supposed to be able to do, but without the risks because it has been around since the 80's and is already approved for human use.

Frontline health workers were at risk and with not enough vaccines to go around some were chosen for a trial using Ivermectin, not only as a treatment for the virus, but also in reducing transmission. This it did for all strains. If this is a proven and effective treatment and preventative with peer reviewed studies already done, then why are we not hearing about this drug? Why is it not offered as a safer alternative to the vaccines? I think we can all do the math.....pro-choice should include all potential treatments, especially if the trials have already shown positive outcomes in its effectiveness?

Craig Kelly brought this out in a speech he made in our (Australian) Parliament recently......he has the data and the study results...but I'll wager not many people will even get to hear what he said or take him seriously because of media sabotage of his credibility. Many might not like the cut of his jib, but if he has the goods, why not allow him present them? Let the evidence speak for itself....and challenge the evidence rather than just shooting the messenger....?
I’m all for the evidence speaking for itself. But at the end of the day, like every single medical decisions we make, it’s a pro vs con case. Every single medication has potential long term side affects. Paracetamol can cause heart issues, opioid based pain killers can become addictive and your body can build up a tolerance over time.
What are the known long term severe affects of COVID that vaccines are trying to prevent? Death. Long term damage to internal organs.
Vs the potential side affects of the vaccines. Rare blood clot for AstraZeneca. Some soreness, tiredness and muscle aches for a couple days for Pfizer. Maybe a temporary change in lymph nodes for I think it’s 1 out of 10 women. I can understand the anxiety regarding the very long term side affects in the future. It is “new on the market.” But it doesn’t seem like a safe choice to remain unvaccinated right now. Even when taking into account the side affects of vaccines
 

We Never Know

No Slack
It's a very difficult call because long term studies have not been done, and some warnings are coming from very credible sources that the new technology implemented in the mRNA vaccines is completely untested, long term. Some studies (not made public) have discovered that these vaccines are actually doing what they are not supposed to do theoretically, and being deposited in places where they are not supposed to go. This has some health professionals worried about serious future outcomes. Weighing risks and balances is difficult. I am unconvinced at this time and will remain so until I am convinced that the cure is not potentially worse than the complaint. I don't trust huge corporations driven by profit to put the best interests of the public ahead of their bottom line.

Only a very small percentage of people who come down with C19 get much sicker than a good dose of the flu, recovering at home and not needing hospitalization or ventilators. So using the same principle given for the risk of blood clots in the AZ vaccine, we should be able to make our own choice in this. If you know the risk but are willing to take it.....it should be our right to refuse what we have no faith in.

What else gets to me is suppression of information that can be beneficial to everyone but the drug companies who have spent $billions in order to make $billions more out of this pandemic. The biggest suppression is that of Ivermectin. A drug unrelated to the flu, but which has been trialed and tested in countries where vaccines are not as affordable as they are in wealthier nations. This cheap drug has been shown to accomlplish all that the vaccine is supposed to be able to do, but without the risks because it has been around since the 80's and is already approved for human use.

Frontline health workers were at risk and with not enough vaccines to go around some were chosen for a trial using Ivermectin, not only as a treatment for the virus, but also in reducing transmission. This it did for all strains. If this is a proven and effective treatment and preventative with peer reviewed studies already done, then why are we not hearing about this drug? Why is it not offered as a safer alternative to the vaccines? I think we can all do the math.....pro-choice should include all potential treatments, especially if the trials have already shown positive outcomes in its effectiveness?

Craig Kelly brought this out in a speech he made in our (Australian) Parliament recently......he has the data and the study results...but I'll wager not many people will even get to hear what he said or take him seriously because of media sabotage of his credibility. Many might not like the cut of his jib, but if he has the goods, why not allow him present them? Let the evidence speak for itself....and challenge the evidence rather than just shooting the messenger....?

Maybe this is one study....

We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe this is one study....

We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
Maybe because I’m not scientific literate. This is saying that this is a potential treatment against COVID in the future, right?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I’m all for the evidence speaking for itself. But at the end of the day, like every single medical decisions we make, it’s a pro vs con case. Every single medication has potential long term side affects. Paracetamol can cause heart issues, opioid based pain killers can become addictive and your body can build up a tolerance over time.
What are the known long term severe affects of COVID that vaccines are trying to prevent? Death. Long term damage to internal organs.
Vs the potential side affects of the vaccines. Rare blood clot for AstraZeneca. Some soreness, tiredness and muscle aches for a couple days for Pfizer. Maybe a temporary change in lymph nodes for I think it’s 1 out of 10 women. I can understand the anxiety regarding the very long term side affects in the future. It is “new on the market.” But it doesn’t seem like a safe choice to remain unvaccinated right now. Even when taking into account the side affects of vaccines
I just need these people to give us all the facts, not just their own (vested interest backed) opinions.

Case numbers have to be balanced with ICU numbers and those on ventilators.....and the true number of those who have died...not from C19 but from complications due to pre-existing health issues, exacerbated by the virus.
If the only source of information is the controlled news media then..."Houston...we have a problem".....

In the concerted effort to control "misinformation" about the virus and the vaccines....what if its misinformation that we have been fed via the media all along?.....how would we know? If profit is the driver.....God help us!

Is it too much to ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....? In this world apparently it is. :(
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I just need these people to give us all the facts, not just their own (vested interest backed) opinions.

Case numbers have to be balanced with ICU numbers and those on ventilators.....and the true number of those who have died...not from C19 but from complications due to pre-existing health issues, exacerbated by the virus.
If the only source of information is the controlled news media then..."Houston...we have a problem".....

In the concerted effort to control "misinformation" about the virus and the vaccines....what if its misinformation that we have been fed via the media all along?.....how would we know? If profit is the driver.....God help us!

Is it too much to ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....? In this world apparently it is. :(
What misinformation specifically? If it’s not backed by scientific inquiry, then it should be suppressed. People are not scientifically literate enough to properly understand the data which can be easily manipulated to say something else or misinterpreted. And I’m including myself in that group for the record
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I just need these people to give us all the facts, not just their own (vested interest backed) opinions.

Case numbers have to be balanced with ICU numbers and those on ventilators.....and the true number of those who have died...not from C19 but from complications due to pre-existing health issues, exacerbated by the virus.
If the only source of information is the controlled news media then..."Houston...we have a problem".....

In the concerted effort to control "misinformation" about the virus and the vaccines....what if its misinformation that we have been fed via the media all along?.....how would we know? If profit is the driver.....God help us!

Is it too much to ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....? In this world apparently it is. :(

"and the true number of those who have died...not from C19 but from complications due to pre-existing health issues, exacerbated by the virus."

That is still death caused by the virus because the virus pushed them over the edge. Without the virus their conditions wouldn't have killed them yet.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
What misinformation specifically? If it’s not backed by scientific inquiry, then it should be suppressed. People are not scientifically literate enough to properly understand the data which can be easily manipulated to say something else or misinterpreted. And I’m including myself in that group for the record
I see suppression of any fact that might sway opinions against the current treatment and prevention of this disease. Its like they have funded this committment and by George, they are going to put those jabs in as many arms as they possibly can. When the A-Z presented with blood clotting problems, people became wary and withdrew from taking it. But waiting for the mRNA vaccines was going to take time because Australia did not jump on the bandwagon soon enough to secure the doses as some other countries did. So they tried flogging it off to people of different age groups. When that didn't work they flogged it off to third word nations....supposedly being altruistic. I don't think they have a clue about what they are doing. How can you trust them?

If, as I mentioned, Ivermectin does everything the vaccine is supposed to do with less risk, then why is it at least not offered? If the studies overseas have confirmed its efficacy and its preventative effects on this SARS virus.....the only thing standing in its way is profit for the big boys.....and a media paid to do as its told. This is the sad and sorry world we live in.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
"and the true number of those who have died...not from C19 but from complications due to pre-existing health issues, exacerbated by the virus."

That is still death caused by the virus because the virus pushed them over the edge. Without the virus their conditions wouldn't have killed them yet.
For some, it wouldn't have mattered.....pneumonia caused by any other virus would have done the same thing. A large percentage of the elderly succumb to bacterial and viral pneumonia every year. I really do see the numbers as over inflated because of this. We also know that India's extraordinary death rate from Covid was caused by a shortage of oxygen.....which is the first line treatment for any serious lung infection.
 
Top