Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

allnurses Guide · Aug 31, 2021

10 hours ago, jive turkey said:

Just curious:

If someone didn't take the vaccine and died what would you say?

If someone had to content with a mandate, and became one of the 3/100k or 11/100k what do you say to them/their survivors?

As I said, any death is tragic. I was just reading this story today and I feel the same for him as I do from the woman in New Zealand, their families and friends.

https://news.Yahoo.com/anti-vaxx-police-officer-had-205911771.html

I think you misinterpreted that statistic: 3 of 100,000 that get vaccinated will develop myocarditis vs 11 out of 100,000 that have covid will develop myocarditis. These are not death rates. On a population level, vaccination actually reduces incidence of myocarditis.

SmilingBluEyes · Aug 31, 2021

On 8/29/2021 at 5:16 AM, klone said:

Didn't get the vaccine because he already got Covid and didn't think he could get sick. This is one of the Denver Broncos coaches. Now he is urging everyone to please get vaccinated, even if you have already had Covid.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/colorado-fitness-coach-covid-19-vaccine/73-174c9d51-97ed-4693-b208-c4a2100d0666?fbclid=IwAR1dxAFXYhpev1IXzvlL9dj3aZM62ceGz5evT5q1HbKahSAHJs6TFlC0nA

A very good friend of mine has a similar story - got Covid last Winter, didn't think she needed the vaccine. Got sick again this past Spring. She has been living in the ICU for the last 2 months. She was on ECMO for 6 weeks. There were a few points where we were sure she was not going to make it through the night. They have finally decannulated (right term?) her about a week ago. Now she has a LOOONG road ahead. She may need bilateral lung transplants. She's on dialysis. Her heart is damaged.

There are hundreds of other stories just like these.

There are more than hundreds I say. There are probably thousands. I read similar stories every single day. Sad what being on one's deathbed will do. Changes minds. Too late.

guest1163268 · Aug 31, 2021

Best treatment available horse ???

So this nurse is definitely getting a Nobel the next time it comes around!

Apparently she must have been kicked by a horse while standing under an apple tree and landed in the tower, which began to lean and had a Eureka moment!!

You simply have to watch this!

Is horse nursing a specialty? I can't remember that course?

Totally unable to provide the link but go to Youtube and put in, Ivermectin Horse Paste.

Watch "Ivermectin Horse Paste" on Youtube
https://youtu.be/5LamcxP0j90

10GaugeNeedles, BSN · Aug 31, 2021

7 hours ago, jive turkey said:

https://clinicalnews.org/2021/08/26/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/

Here's another article for those of you throwing natural immunity to the wind and insist it's "not a valid reason?" for someone to consider deferring on the vaccine after a previous infection (and talking to their doctor)

A case can be made for natural immunity, naive vaccination, and vaccination following a previous infection.

Side note: I had to use an anonymous browser called Tor and change the region of search to get this for you ??. A typical Google search via common browsers like chrome and Firefox display vaccine biased results.

This was excellent. The research isn't what I would call valid, but it did lead me to think about the logic behind greater immunity via infection (not to say that's a strategy, but if you already had gotten infected, is it actually necessary to vaccinate?). I believe multiple antibodies targeting multiple proteins on the the viral envelope will be produced. So rather than strictly the spike protein being the only disease vector, multiple targets are present leading to a more diverse immune response. Not to mention protection from variants since, doubtful every protein on the envelope will change.I don't think we have enough data to conclusively say vaccination is or is not necessary after infection.

Ps, I've very little experience with Tor. Tried for a while with the dark web stuff but got bored. LOL

macawake, MSN · Aug 31, 2021

19 hours ago, nuanced said:

The fact that you tell me what I've said is "disinformation" just shows how smug you are. I can find data to backup my position as well, the media will find a way to explain why the data shouldn't be interpreted in a normal way and you'll probably believe it, but observe this technical briefing from the UK government that shows more vaccinated people have died from "Delta" recently than unvaccinated people over the age of 50. I'd interpret that as proof that these vaccines are not good for people who are already at risk, but that's just my interpretation. The fact remains that there were more vaccinated people who died. Why is that not worth discussing?

Genuinely I think there is a disconnect between people who "trust the experts" who we know to be opportunistic liars and those of us who don't believe everything we're told, especially when we've seen things with our own eyes.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf

The fact that I said that you appear to have been affected by disinformation doesn’t make me smug, it just means that I’m in touch with reality. You did claim that the vaccines have caused an inordinate amount of deaths. Inordinate means excessive or unusually or disproportionately large. That simply isn’t true. However what is a fact, is that Covid-19 infections have caused millions of deaths worldwide. There is also no evidence that supports that reported Covid deaths have been inflated in any significant way. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that the global death toll is underreported.

About the UK statistics you included and asked why the fact that they indicate that more fully vaccinated individuals 50 years or older, have died (from a Delta variant infection) in the UK than their unvaccinated peers during the period February 1 to August 2 this year, isn’t worth discussing.

I think it’s worth discussing, but I’m afraid that now you’re really going to think that I’m smug. I’m actually happy to discuss it. Spoiler alert, the conclusion you drew is wrong.

Let’s say that you are desperate for a job and you are suddenly offered two jobs. One on the East Coast and one on the West Coast. The jobs both require that you move to the small towns where these companies are located.

Unfortunately there is a serial killer on the loose in both towns. The police actually think that it’s the same killer who ambulates back and forth from coast to coast, but so far they haven’t been able to catch him. You aren’t exactly thrilled by your options but you really, really need this job. So you decide to do a little research.

As luck would have it the local newspapers in each of the two towns have just issued a special edition where they report the number of murders that have occurred in the past seven months. You quickly grab a copy each of the Slaytown Herald and the Croakville Gazette. Slaytown, population 4,509 reports 21 murders by the elusive, cardiovascularly very fit and highly efficient serial killer in the previous seven months and during that same time period 11 murders have taken place in Croakville, population 501.

Based on this, would you really decide that Croakville is the safer option for you since they ”only” had 11 murders?

The most recent stats regarding vaccination against Covid in the UK says that 88.4% of the population aged 16 or older have received their first dose, and 78.6% are fully vaccinated.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

They started vaccinating early in December 2020 and they vaccinated the older folks and the medically vulnerable first. They likely have a slightly higher vaccine uptake in the older age groups than in younger. This is likely the reason why more people under 50 have been hospitalized since February according to the statistics you linked.

I’m sure you see where I was going with my hypothetical job hunt scenario…

In case you didn’t. If for example 85% of a certain age group are fully vaccinated and 10% are unvaccinated and there are 389 deaths in the 85% part of the total, and 205 deaths in the MUCH smaller 10% group.. then that means that the unvaccinated are dying at a much higher rate, despite the number of deaths being a smaller number. There are simply many more vaccinated individuals in the UK than unvaccinated and I don’t think it’s strange to see that there have been more deaths in that group.

If a country should manage to vaccinate 100% of its population, then 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. The difference is that there will be fewer deaths/infection since the vaccines offer a good protection (but not 100%).

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Aug 31, 2021

I don't know, @macawake. That math might be a little much for some people to absorb...

macawake, MSN · Aug 31, 2021

15 minutes ago, Horseshoe said:

I don't know, @macawake. That math might be a little much for some people to absorb...

Naaaw, I have faith in mankind ?

Seriously people, when looking at ? it’s vital to look at what the numbers actually are a measurement of. (And always look at what the heck is actually on the x- and y-axes in a graph).

jive turkey · Aug 31, 2021

3 hours ago, BostonFNP said:

As I said, any death is tragic. I was just reading this story today and I feel the same for him as I do from the woman in New Zealand, their families and friends.

https://news.Yahoo.com/anti-vaxx-police-officer-had-205911771.html

I think you misinterpreted that statistic: 3 of 100,000 that get vaccinated will develop myocarditis vs 11 out of 100,000 that have covid will develop myocarditis. These are not death rates. On a population level, vaccination actually reduces incidence of myocarditis.

survivors is my way of considering the possibility of death at any time despite no mention of it in those statistics.

I'd still like to know what you'd say to those people if they became part of that statistic having taken the vaccine due to a mandate.

jive turkey · Aug 31, 2021

4 hours ago, emtb2rn said:

Why’d you have to use tor? This isn’t dark web material. I found the same study easily using duck-duck. Take a look - 5th hit. But I’m trying Ringo, I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd…

My Tor browser uses Duck-duck. Same difference in that regard however my searches aren't based on my actual location for Google to try and customize my answers based on prior search history and SEO's.

Using a typical browser, the top results would have articles cherry picking what portion of the study they referenced, but didn't display the whole thing like the link I provided. It could be different for someone else.

macawake, MSN · Aug 31, 2021

1 hour ago, jive turkey said:

I'd still like to know what you'd say to those people if they became part of that statistic having taken the vaccine due to a mandate.

I’m sure someone will answer that question just as soon as you finally share what reasons you think are valid reasons to not vaccinate ?

After all, you started this thread and we’re all quite curious to hear your opinion.

10GaugeNeedles, BSN · Aug 31, 2021

36 minutes ago, macawake said:

The fact that I said that you appear to have been affected by disinformation doesn’t make me smug, it just means that I’m in touch with reality. You did claim that the vaccines have caused an inordinate amount of deaths. Inordinate means excessive or unusually or disproportionately large. That simply isn’t true. However what is a fact, is that Covid-19 infections have caused millions of deaths worldwide. There is also no evidence that supports that reported Covid deaths have been inflated in any significant way. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that the global death toll is underreported.

About the UK statistics you included and asked why the fact that they indicate that more fully vaccinated individuals 50 years or older, have died in the UK than their unvaccinated peers during the period February 1 to August 2 this year, isn’t worth discussing.

We can discuss it and now you’re really going to think that I’m smug. I’m actually happy to discuss it. Spoiler alert, the conclusion you drew is wrong.

Let’s say that you are desperate for a job and you are suddenly offered two jobs. One on the East Coast and one on the West Coast. The jobs both require that you move to the small towns where these companies are located.

Unfortunately there is a serial killer on the loose in both towns. The police actually think that it’s the same killer who ambulates back and forth from coast to coast, but so far they haven’t been able to catch him. You aren’t exactly thrilled by your options but you really, really need this job. So you decide to do a little research.

As luck would have it the local newspapers in each of the two towns have just issued a special edition where they report the number of murders that have occurred in the past seven months. You quickly grab a copy each of the Slaytown Herald and the Croakville Gazette. Slaytown, population 4,509 reports 21 murders by the elusive, cardiovascularly very fit and highly efficient serial killer in the previous seven months and during that same time period 11 murders have taken place in Croakville, population 501.

Based on this, would you really decide that Croakville is the safer option for you since they ”only” had 11 murders?

The most recent stats regarding vaccination against Covid in the UK says that 88.4% of the population aged 16 or older have received their first dose, and 78.6% are fully vaccinated.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

They started vaccinating early in December 2020 and they vaccinated the older folks and the medically vulnerable first. They likely have a slightly higher vaccine uptake in the older age groups than in younger. This is likely the reason why more people under 50 have been hospitalized since February according to the statistics you linked.

I’m sure you see where I was going with my hypothetical job hunt scenario…

In case you didn’t. If for example 85% of a certain age group are fully vaccinated and 10% are unvaccinated and there are 389 deaths in the 85% part of the total, and 205 deaths in the MUCH smaller 10% group.. then that means that the unvaccinated are dying at a much higher rate, despite the number of deaths being a smaller number. There are simply many more vaccinated individuals in the UK than unvaccinated and I don’t think it’s strange to see that there have been more deaths in that group.

If a country should manage to vaccinate 100% of its population, then 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. The difference is that there are fewer death/infection since the vaccines offer a good protection (but not 100%).

I feel like both sides are missing each other's point. Provaxx (I'll call them"BLUE") and hesitant (I'll call them "red") are firing shots at each other. They are both morons to the other side. Blue says "here's the data. If you reject my data your an idiot."

Red hears this and says "you are just following orders. Your data is tainted. I don't believe your sources because your sources are desperate to get everyone stuck with this stuff. What's the REAL motive here? I'm afraid of what I think you're sources are hiding. You're a shill. Heres MY DATA."

Blue says "your data isn't from a source I trust."

Red says "well your data isn't from a source IIIII trust! I don't want what you're selling! I don't want GBS, A BLOOD CLOT (I DO NOT CARE HOW RARE IT IS!), or something made from aborted fetal cells! Screw you!"

This is NOT how good decision making is done. Many many people AREN'T getting sick even with a positive test. Why? Some people just aren't effected by this virus. Do we know why? I've seen good data to suggest asymptomatic people are not spreading the disease. Is there a way we could mandate the highest risk people (obese and over weight, chronically ill, and those over 45, etc) to get the vaccine while not forcing those who may not even be at risk of any kind of illness? A focused approach may improve trust among red. But the current approach is not helping anyone.

toomuchbaloney · Aug 31, 2021

9 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I feel like both sides are missing each other's point. Provaxx (I'll call them"BLUE") and hesitant (I'll call them "red") are firing shots at each other. They are both morons to the other side. Blue says "here's the data. If you reject my data your an idiot."

Red hears this and says "you are just following orders. Your data is tainted. I don't believe your sources because your sources are desperate to get everyone stuck with this stuff. What's the REAL motive here? I'm afraid of what I think you're sources are hiding. You're a shill. Heres MY DATA."

Blue says "your data isn't from a source I trust."

Red says "well your data isn't from a source IIIII trust! I don't want what you're selling! I don't want GBS, A BLOOD CLOT (I DO NOT CARE HOW RARE IT IS!), or something made from aborted fetal cells! Screw you!"

This is NOT how good decision making is done. Many many people AREN'T getting sick even with a positive test. Why? Some people just aren't effected by this virus. Do we know why? I've seen good data to suggest asymptomatic people are not spreading the disease. Is there a way we could mandate the highest risk people (obese and over weight, chronically ill, and those over 45, etc) to get the vaccine while not forcing those who may not even be at risk of any kind of illness? A focused approach may improve trust among red. But the current approach is not helping anyone.

The "red side" should stop putting words in the mouths of the other side and mischaraterizing the overall vaccination messaging with the intention of creating anger and animosity. That alone would help considerably.