Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[fifteenth]

Maybe time to move this thread to ROTW forum?

Do we have one of those?

Is it bothering folks seeing this at the top of the list?


I hear a motion from @michaeltex to move this thread to ROTW. 

If we can get some support for the motion (via likes or replies), I'll move the thread 

[Mapka]

Oversimplification. 

1) There are a whole range of health outcomes between death and perfectly well.  
2) You have an explicit assumption that the numbers you read or hear are accurate

1) Well, like permanent lung damage, fatigue, dysgeusia?
2) No, they are not accurate but approximatly correct. The best numbers we have.

Do you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease?

I just try to understand the logic, but to me it just seems like you/antivaxxers use "it´s a fraud to harm me" as the foundation of your logic and adjust everything to fit this narrativ.

[Dahlsim]

1) Well, like permanent lung damage, fatigue, dysgeusia?
2) No, they are not accurate but approximatly correct. The best numbers we have.

Do you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease?

I just try to understand the logic, but to me it just seems like you/antivaxxers use "it´s a fraud to harm me" as the foundation of your logic and adjust everything to fit this narrativ.

1) There are a whole range of health issues  some people have short of death.  Many are known due to recovering from Covid and other issues some people have as a side effect from vaccinations.  Those are not necessarily as well know yet.  
I'm simply saying 1:100 or 1:1,000,000 choice to live or die is a vast oversimplification of the health implications people are considering. 

2) Who is the "we" that have the numbers?   Kinda depends on which group of we's you trust doesn't it? 

Do you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease?

I never said that. The disease is terribly dangerous.  I don't anyone is denying that.  You can place the anti-vaxx label on anyone without actually examining the details or nuances of what is being said.  That isn't helpful.  
I tend to post what I recognize to be the under represented side of the debate as I stated earlier.  The mainstream has the positives of vaccination covered pretty well imo.  

Again, the answer to your question not as simple as it sounds because it depends on 

1) Who are you evaluating the safety profile for?   Age, health profile, do they have antibodies already, etc. 
2) How reliable are the statistics we are getting which in turn depends on how complete and accurate the data inputs are. 

My main point has been and remains that this is not such a slam dunk situation that it should be force injected into the people against their wills, and I wouldn't agree with force injections even if it was a slam dunk.  Persuade your fellow citizens that its a slam dunk. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli...t-n2591466 

UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Doctor Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Doctor Harvey Risch warn there are legitimate and serious concerns about the side effects of the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine. They also worry vaccine politics could be preventing officials from telling Americans the truth about the risks. 

Again, I don't think all the concerns have come from "Covidiots" as you put it. 

"The large clustering of certain adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients," they continue. 

Lapado and Risch don't simply state opinions; they back up their concerns with data and clinical experience. 

Again, proximity to vaccination doesn't constitute proof that the vaccination is the cause as I posted earlier if you actually read closely, but it has raised the flag that more investigations have been needed.  To the credit of the mainstream medical community, adjustments are being made and have been made to the vaccinations to address safety concerns as I believe @"dirkfansince1998"pointed out. 
Again though, it hasn't justified a slam dunk punch it in their arms like it or not vaccination drive. 

"Four serious adverse events follow this arc, according to data taken directly from Vaers: low platelets (thrombocytopenia); noninfectious myocarditis, or heart inflammation, especially for those under 30; deep-vein thrombosis; and death. Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of receiving a vaccination, falling to almost zero by 10 days. Prior research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience," they write. "Analyses to confirm or dismiss these findings should be performed using large data sets of health-insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend...the implication is that the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from Covid-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread, since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk."

[luka_skywalker_77]

Natural immunity might be longer lasting (as suggested by the study @"TXBamanut" linked) but we know that the IgG-titer are dropping in both cases. Thankfully T/B cell half life time is looking solid. Be it natural immunity or the vaccine. Not a have it once and be done with it situation. And as mentioned the vaccine also improves the immune response of people that already had it.

The mechanisms of the mRNA COVID vaccines aren´t in any way or form comparable to the flu shot. We are talking about completely different viruses. The flu shot is targeting a number of different subtypes/strains and needs to be adjusted each year. As of now we don´t know if this is the case with COVID. Next important part of vaccine research is the impact of the booster shot.
Data wasn´t hidden. In some cases data was simply missing. That´s pretty normal when we are talking about a new virus. We nearly made it out of the conspiracy theory category in the last two days but it seems like we are making a deep dive again.

#1: Natural does last longer--not might. Stop mincing words please. If you have natural immunity, there is no reason for you to add to that. You're just taking a risk at incurring a serious side effect from the vaccine. No sense in adding new drugs to that mix for no reason. You want to add a vax to that, go for it. Boost yourself till you're blue in the face and place a sticker on your chest that said you did it. 

#2: Yes, they are not the same. You're deconstructing my position in a way that misrepresents my argument. Again, both vaccines are prophylactic/therapeutic. I'm not sure how many more times I need to explain that before you understand it my guy. Both mitigate serious illness and both do not stop you from transmitting/becoming infected. Second, although this is a new virus, the data from decades past on coronaviruses is still very relative. 

#3: The US since the beginning, has has the worst data collection of covid data in the first world. This has been notably written about (if you've been dealing with these metrics for any given period of time). Demographic data was virtually non existent almost a year in and nothing was standardized. That's not a point I'm going to argue with you here because that's very well known. 

#4: The rest, from a prior post, it seem more than obvious that you're more inclined to trust government related materials, scientists and outcomes. That's where you based your trust. So much that anyone that falls outside of the mainstream of opinion and though (and science), you'll respond with ignorance and criticism. That's on you. So far you've said absolutely nothing in this conversation worth noting as relative fact--and I've run out of patience collecting my thoughts. So you're wrong on point 1, 2 and 3. The people you're referring to are board certified in what they do and far more knowledgeable about this that you seem to let on and for whatever they are charged with, i care if any of it sticks. Anyone can be charged with a lawsuit and anyone can be made to look a fool in the court of public opinion.

For example: "[...] Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent advocate for early out-patient treatment of COVID-19, was recently sued by his former employer demanding more than $1 million in damages, for allegedly continuing to refer to that affiliation, supposedly confusing the public about the institution’s views."

Just stop.

This is the last thing I'll say to you unless it's basketball related: you're inclined to believe what you want. People are inclined to protect themselves how they see fit. People needs every option available according to the their own personal circumstances and their own personal pcps--not you or anyone else. Why should a doctor lose his license for prescribing a medication off label for treatment, especially when it's non toxic? Make that make sense. You can't. Are there dumb mfkrs taking animal meds? Yes. A small minority but this is a medication thats used by humans the world over and has been used for covid with absolute success. Not 100% but from 40% - 75% efficacy or so. Unless you're saying every clinic, scientist, operation outside the US is lying and conspiring to use cheap medication over the most expensive option. Yes, all of those scientists are lying about it working. Tf...

If you have a problem with that, that's no one's problem but your own, but the censorship, the lying, the forced coercion and again the lying, needs to stop and all voices need to be heard and all data needs to be shared for people to make their own decisions. No one single independent, unelected group of bureaucrats need to be making decisions on behalf of the entire country, period. If you don't like that, you can move to Australia or China where you'll be welcomed as the model citizen. 

[luka_skywalker_77]

Add: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...021-10-06/

"The Swedish health agency said it would pause using the shot for people born in 1991 and later as data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults that had been vaccinated. Those conditions involve an inflammation of the heart or its lining.

"The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna's vaccine Spikevax, especially after the second dose," the health agency said, adding the risk of being affected was very small."

They aren't pausing a vaccination rollout over a few cases...

[dirkfansince1998]

Again, the answer to your question not as simple as it sounds because it depends on 

1) Who are you evaluating the safety profile for?   Age, health profile, do they have antibodies already, etc. 
2) How reliable are the statistics we are getting which in turn depends on how complete and accurate the data inputs are. 

I think it is more about the style of presentation when it comes to your opinion and the people you quote. Maybe the expert discussion process isn´t as visable in mainstream media as it should be. Especially in the USs divided media landscape.
Question is if the right response is to quote questionable characters like Ritsch, Gold, McCullough and other prominent anti vax campaigners. It seems like a lot of people are quick to distrust mainstream media, federal agencies, big pharma or the government. Fair enough. But there are other ways to do it. No need to quote phyisicans turned snake oil salesmen. I thought that´s the kind of corruption and lack of transparency we are trying to fight.

Take a look at the way the people you are refering to operate. Most of them are connected to movements like the FLCCC or AFLDS. Why aren´t they supporting the vaccine? Because it is political. Because they are making money. Taking advantage of desperate and gullible individuals. Asking for donations. Charging 90$ for simple phone calls. Selling drugs. Linking people up with doctors that are willing to hand out drugs that aren´t included in the guidelines. Ivermectin and other so called "miracle drugs" are cheap. So why are they selling them for hundreds of dollars.

There are reasonable questions about the vaccine safety. Just need to ask them and we can get into a debate about the pro´s and con´s.  I am happy that you picked up the myocarditis/pericarditis example. That´s not important for the majority of people but should be considered for younger men or children. In a lot of countries that is already the case. Maybe the US are a little bit behind the trend.
And just to prevent any misinformation. Based on the available data the risk to suffer from COVID related complications is still way higher. Even for younger men.

[david75090]

Less than 1% of infected people are dying.  Recognize that...so couching this as "well, you get it and die or get over it" posits that these two options are similar in outcome, but they are NOT...and it's a very biased presentation.

If YOU are the one who catches Covid and dies, that's 100% as pertains to YOU. What if it's a loved one? Are you OK with them dying? Who are you comfortable with dying of Covid?

[dirkfansince1998]

I tried to stay away from this thread because I knew that it would turn into a shit show. I am not on other social media platforms so I haven´t tried to argue with let´s say people with different views on the vaccine and COVID. I was tempted to just ignore the thread but read a few things about misinformation and the best way to dispute it. Bottom line. Just leaving it out in the open is not the way to go. And so I tried. Maybe I could have done it in a more polite way but outside of our conversation I actually enjoyed the discussions @"Dahlsim". We obviously don´t have the same opinions but we can discuss them in a civil manner.
Not always fun but now I have committed and as long as threads like this exist on this board I will continue to make my case. I am not without fault and anyone is free to come to his own conclusions.

Natural does last longer--not might.

Based on recent data you are right. I should have phrased it differently and simply added a sentence that accounts for the number of people that isn´t showing any kind of immune response after an infection (mostly mild cases, no symptoms). So yes if you have natural immunity it lasts longer but there are concerns about a high number of infections that did not lead to the expected immune response (potentially no natural immunity).

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

If you have natural immunity, there is no reason for you to add to that. You're just taking a risk at incurring a serious side effect from the vaccine.

Wrong. All relevant studies suggested increased IgG-titer. Outside of a slightly stronger initial vaccine reaction (headach, fever) there are no known additonal risks. That´s why all major health agencies around the world suggest the vaccine for fully recovered. Recovered and vaccinated is better than simply recovered. Take a look at @"TXBamanut" post and the linked study. It seems that you are willing to accept the first conclusion (lasting natural immunity). Why not the second?

No sense in adding new drugs to that mix for no reason

Seems like you are supporting the use of all kind of drugs. Recommended or not. The one that is actually proven to work wouldn´t hurt.

Yes, they are not the same. You're deconstructing my position in a way that misrepresents my argument.

I am not. I am calling out your assumptions. As of now we don´t know enough about the potential impact of a 3rd shot. But even if we need another one or even a fourth one that´s  nothing new. Again. Different virus. Different immun response. Different vaccine. Different immune mechanisms.
A lot of vaccines need multiple shots or need to be refreshed. Example. Five Tetanus doses for children. Sixth one recommended for adults.
We need more information about the virus and the immune response to come up with the best possible solution. And yes that is going to take a lot of time.

The US since the beginning, has has the worst data collection of covid data in the first world. This has been notably written about (if you've been dealing with these metrics for any given period of time). Demographic data was virtually non existent almost a year in and nothing was standardized. That's not a point I'm going to argue with you here because that's very well known. 

Again. Nothing was hidden but I won´t be able to change your believe system. Futile to try it. But even if that is the case it wouldn´t be a problem. Thankfully we have more than one country in the world and others are collecting data as well. But you obviously don´t want to talk about it. Systems like VAERS for example exist in nearly all countries.

The people you're referring to are board certified in what they do and far more knowledgeable about this that you seem to let on and for whatever they are charged with, i care if any of it sticks. Anyone can be charged with a lawsuit and anyone can be made to look a fool in the court of public opinion.

For example: "[...] Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent advocate for early out-patient treatment of COVID-19, was recently sued by his former employer demanding more than $1 million in damages, for allegedly continuing to refer to that affiliation, supposedly confusing the public about the institution’s views."

No doubt. A lot of them know more than me. I am not claiming to have superior knowledge. Thing is that the large majority of phyisicians that disagrees with them also has more knowledge than me. Even if you think that all have them are in it for the money, control, big pharma and the government what´s the difference compared to mentioned guys that are in it for the same reasons. I already mentioned FLCCC and AFLDS methods and snake oil salesmen schemes.  I guess the guys that are selling phone calls and drugs for hundreds of dollars are the good guys.

Why should a doctor lose his license for prescribing a medication off label for treatment

Because it is incredible dangerous. Even off label treatment comes with some recommendations. Most physicians are specialist. In most cases a family doctor (or similar) cannot have the required knowledge to come up with a completly new treatment regimen. Specialist do. That´s why they design them. That´s why we have guidelines for basically every single possible medical scenario and come up with new ones when we encounter a new scenario.
Not to mention the possiblity to abuse the system for monetary or other reasons. Not to mention the potential legal consequences. Personally I would not risk a million or even billion dollar civil law suit.

Make that make sense. You can't. Are there dumb mfkrs taking animal meds? Yes. A small minority but this is a medication thats used by humans the world over and has been used for covid with absolute success. Not 100% but from 40% - 75% efficacy or so. Unless you're saying every clinic, scientist, operation outside the US is lying and conspiring to use cheap medication over the most expensive option. Yes, all of those scientists are lying about it working

Already answered this in length. No the effcacy is not proven. But at this point I am not repeating my lengthy response from an earlier post. To summarize it. Some low quality studies are suggesting that there might be a positive impact. All high quality studies (randomized, double blind) that haven´t been retracted negate that. Not sure how that is any prove for the mentioned efficacy but I know where the numbers are coming from so I am not suprised.
Not sure where the claim about scienists or research from outside the US is coming from. Maybe a vivid fantasy.
As of now there is no relevant evidence that supports the case for Ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Further research is on the way and hopefully it will settle the debate. Who knows. Maybe we get lucky and they find something. Would be great for all of us.

If you have a problem with that, that's no one's problem but your own, but the censorship, the lying, the forced coercion and again the lying, needs to stop

It seems like you have more of a problem. Otherwise you woudn´t be as angry. I recognize some of the problems we have and the distrust in the current political system and authorities. Probably not the ones that you would mention. Can certainly agree that I want to live in a free country and don´t like lies. I guess that our political views are just as contraire as our views on COVID.

No one single independent, unelected group of bureaucrats need to be making decisions on behalf of the entire country, period. If you don't like that, you can move to Australia or China where you'll be welcomed as the model citizen. 

Lucky you. I already moved to Germany. Based on the things I have heard and seen Australia is a great place to be. Would love to visit it at some point in the future. I am deeply sorry that I am destroying your American dream.
Great idea by the way. Let´s just kick all of the people that disagree with a random opinion out of the country. Didn´t you just mention suppression and censorship.

Add: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...021-10-06/

"The Swedish health agency said it would pause using the shot for people born in 1991 and later as data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults that had been vaccinated. Those conditions involve an inflammation of the heart or its lining.

"The connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna's vaccine Spikevax, especially after the second dose," the health agency said, adding the risk of being affected was very small."

They aren't pausing a vaccination rollout over a few cases...

Damn censorship. If only one of us would have mentioned this a few days ago. Or even month ago because the information was available all the time. Just need to look at it. Wait a minute I did. From earlier this week.

We also know more about the highlighted risks. In case of Moderna and Pfizer for example we are talking about myocarditis and pericarditis cases spiking among younger men (16-30). Spiking means that we are talking about above average numbers compared to the general population. US data 1:100000. Israel 2.4-2.7:100000. Most of those cases are related to an undiscovered pre existing condition. Meaning that the risk to suffer from the same complications because of a COVID infection is still higher.

The mentioned risk of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia is of importance but not for the US. European AstraZeneca recommendations were adjusted because of it.  Cases spiked among women below 50-60. Countries adjusted the recommendations and continued to use the vaccine. Overall even for the "at risk" group the benefit still outweights the risk according to the data (more likely to suffer from COVID related complications than any vaccine related complications).

Had a nice conversation with @"Dahlsim" over the potential implications and adjusted vaccine guide lines in other countries. The data is from july. Current numbers suggest 4-5:100000.
But I have good news for you. The vaccine is not aproved for people under 18. No forced vaccination for them. Obviously also the case for younger children.


Really sorry about the number of quotes but this time I wanted to adress all points.

[dirkfansince1998]

@"fifteenth". If no one else is interested or other people are annoyed by my lengthy rambles just move the thread. No need to annoy the rest of the community just because two people are engaged in a slugfest.
And now. Let´s go Mavs. Already missed most of the first quarter.

[ItsGoTime]

If YOU are the one who catches Covid and dies, that's 100% as pertains to YOU. What if it's a loved one? Are you OK with them dying? Who are you comfortable with dying of Covid?

Why is this same question irrelevant on the vaccine side? That’s all these guys are saying to you. There are risks both ways, why can’t that risk be for the individual and not through government mandate?

[Mapka]

There are not risks both ways unless youre a god damn *****

can you please enlighten me on the risks both ways so i can go back to schoool?

I would have mandated for compulsory vaccination, if it would have been my choice, but there are risks involved.

You can always have a medical issue you didn't know about. There is always a chance the vax you get was contaminated or mistreated. Or hell, the M.D. might slip and punctures your eye.

It's a game of numbers and the ICUs say the one risk is much higher than the other.

[david75090]

"...Battle lines bein' drawn. Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong..."
Stephen Stills.

[Dahlsim]

I tried to stay away from this thread because I knew that it would turn into a shit show. I am not on other social media platforms so I haven´t tried to argue with let´s say people with different views on the vaccine and COVID. I was tempted to just ignore the thread but read a few things about misinformation and the best way to dispute it. Bottom line. Just leaving it out in the open is not the way to go. And so I tried.

Maybe I could have done it in a more polite way but outside of our conversation I actually enjoyed the discussions @"Dahlsim". We obviously don´t have the same opinions but we can discuss them in a civil manner.
Not always fun but now I have committed and as long as threads like this exist on this board I will continue to make my case. I am not without fault and anyone is free to come to his own conclusions.
...
Really sorry about the number of quotes but this time I wanted to adress all points.

I consider the discussions here important and enlightening.  
The value of the topic and communications come precisely because thoughtful and detailed posters such as yourself @"dirkfansince1998" @"luka_skywalker_77" @"Jannemann2" @"TXBamanut" @"hakeemfaan" and so many others who have disagreements have taken time to post, research, share their own stories on a subject that involves health, life and death, the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration of Independence put it. 

Posters simply dropping in to call people Moron's or Covidiots are not so helpful imo but then it takes all types doesn't it?   

Really sorry about the number of quotes but this time I wanted to adress all points.

Yeah, the detailed point by point analyses can get a bit time consuming.  I also strongly suspect very few people really follow the points closely.  
I say this based on the responses that often seem to miss the boat entirely on things that have already been covered pretty well on both sides of the debate. 

I think as time permits I'll try shorter replies as long as this conversation continues.  That has its own dangers but pick your poison.    
Let's try just this point. 

I think it is more about the style of presentation when it comes to your opinion and the people you quote.

I'm not sure what you mean by style but in terms of the people I generally like to avoid attacks based on the person rather than the issue and argument.  You might know that these types of points in discussion/debates lead to what is known in logic as   ad hominem arguments.  
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-h...mples.html

ad hominem argument or argumentum ad hominem in Latin is used to counter another argument. However, it's based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason, and logic. An ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone's character or motive rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand.

In this case because credibility on the topic is so central to the issue involving Medical Science on top of politics, the references I have posted included people with relevant education credentials and experience.  Someone like Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP and chief scientist of Pfizer.  No matter if you put anti-vaxxer or any other generic label on people like this they are still appropriately credentialed from a education standpoint and they often also have specialized experience that is relevant to the debate.  

That is the point in referencing or quoting them.  I don't like to spend much time attacking the personal motives of people you and others have quoted or referenced no matter which side their arguments tend toward.  I prefer to examine the points made themselves, no matter who made it. 

Dr. Yeadon is also founder of Doctors for Covid Ethics with last I heard over 160 Medical and Research Experts from around the world. 
https://doctors4covidethics.org/

We are doctors and scientists from 30 countries, seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety and human rights in response to COVID-19.

We are doctors and scientists from 30 countries, seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety and human rights in response to COVID-19.

[hakeemfaan]

If one is against any vaccines for Covid, there is nothing that one can say that can change their minds. 

If the concern is specifically about mRNA then is J&J vaccine not an option?

[Dahlsim]

I would have mandated for compulsory vaccination, if it would have been my choice, but there are risks involved.

You can always have a medical issue you didn't know about. There is always a chance the vax you get was contaminated or mistreated. Or hell, the M.D. might slip and punctures your eye.

It's a game of numbers and the ICUs say the one risk is much higher than the other.

Thanks for at least recognizing that there are risks involved, even though you minimize the potential scope and size of those risks.  
@"jesusshuttlesworth82" says: 

There are not risks both ways unless youre a god damn 

That sort of thinking is, I will refrain from name calling here, not at all helpful to the public good or scientific.  
There are definitely risks as I posted earlier and we all know, to any vaccine or even most any drug for that matter.  

The question is what is the size of the risk and what are the risk factors so that specific groups can minimize their risks. 
@"Mapka" isolates his argument to the ICU's and what is reported there.   Here's a couple of things to consider there. 

1)  Let me try a recent anecdote.  I just got a call from a friend yesterday.  I didn't initiate a conversation on this topic, we had plenty of other things to discuss but he claims that because he has had to visit hospitals and medical facilities in a couple of different states recently efforts were made to get to take the vaccination. 
He has rejected all efforts on the basis of the fact that he has already had COVID and his research and doctors tell him he does not need nor should he take the vaccination.  He of course also has medical issues nevertheless the furious drive right now is to VACCINATE EVERYBODY! 

My friend also claims that he knows for sure that many people who are vaccinated, if they report sickness or side effects were being pushed to stay at home and recover, many of which he says should have been in an ICU.  He says that because he knows that some of them died, at home.   
Now I don't claim to know how accurate this is although I know my friend is not prone to fabricating stories without reason.  He also says that he's waiting now for Doctors appointments because there is a shortage of medical help. He claims some of his Doctors, specialists have refused to be immunized and are not longer practicing where they were before.  

Trust me when I say I am sharing his story in much less emotional and anti-vaxx manner than he would. 
My only point here is that there are other numerous factors that could  skew and change the statistics and the numbers we hear and rely on such as the numbers in the ICUs and why they are there. 

2) To the point of risks both ways there is significant disagreement among Medical Professionals on this topic.   I posted references to earlier from other Doctors including some that are formally registering their serious concerns: 
I heard this quote from the aforementioned Dr. Yeadon. 

I think it's dangerous to vaccinate people that already have immunity. 

He gives his reasons and concerns and a lot of other details on the science as he understands it.  
For anyone who would like to hear his reasoning you can go to about the 9:59 point in the following radio interview I have linked here: 
https://wiba.iheart.com/featured/vicki-m...interview/

[dirkfansince1998]

I'm not sure what you mean by style but in terms of the people I generally like to avoid attacks based on the person rather than the issue and argument.  You might know that these types of points in discussion/debates lead to what is known in logic as   ad hominem arguments.

Sorry. Badly phrased on my part. Should have added an explanation. What I mean is that you (and I hope that I am understanding you correctly) do not share the opinion of anti vaxxers that you quoted in your posts. You wanted to bring up their opinion to bring some balance to a in your opinion one sided debate. The mentioned approach gives the entire discussion a pro/contra setup that lacks nuance. I contributed as well. Despite my declaration not to turn this into a purely medical/scientifc debate I failed to do that. I could have been more emphatic towards different believe systems and the role of anectodal experience or stories. Not just responded with the statistics/studies that apply for the mentioned examples.

I would have liked to see more discussions of relevant vaccine risks like the mentioned myocarditis/pericarditis example instead of claims that have been refuted for month. With and I am repeating myself clear data and knowledge. Examples like misscariages or fertility issues (repeated by Mr. Yeadon). That´s what I consider to be dangerous misinformation because pregnant women are at an increased risk of severe illness. And once again. It could have been handled better. It is still common practice to exclude pregnant women from early clinical vaccine trials (pro/con would is another interesting discussion). That´s why governments/agencies had to wait for the necessary evidence before they could adjust their vaccine guidelines for pregnant women.

That is the point in referencing or quoting them.  I don't like to spend much time attacking the personal motives of people you and others have quoted or referenced no matter which side their arguments tend toward.  I prefer to examine the points made themselves, no matter who made it. 

All fair and outside of a few mentioned names (can we ignore people that were part of the crowd that stormed the capitol?) I would agree with that approach. But and now it gets difficult. How do you verify their takes. Or do you just accept that different opinions exist? If that is the case we go back to the earlier more philosophical discussion. Do facts even exist. I have a very strong opinion when it comes this topic.
In case of the last interview with Mr. Yeadon.
He is talking about the role of t-cells and antibodies. He is making it look like it is a proven fact that antibodies aren´t as important. As far as I know (according to the studies I saw) that is still up for debate. But even if he is right all relevant studies suggest that an additional vaccine shot also bolsters the t-cell activity. Why is he leaving that out?
In the next part he is giving a more broad answer on lasting immunity after any kind of viral infection. Instead of giving detailed examples (because the answer is complicated) he makes an oversimplification that suggests lasting immunity (years, decades) in case of most virus. Answer is once again. Different virus, different immune response. A slightly longer explanation with mentions of serotypes and cross immunity would have been great.
And I am not even suggesting bad intentions. Just looking at my attempts in the last few days he is clearly doing a better job when it comes to easy explanations for topics like this.

I am not on the vaccinate all people no matter the consequences train. We should consider the mentioned "at risk" for complications groups but I have no time for people that continue to repeat the same claims and ignore any further research on the topic.
Once again. I am no expert but to give this thread a slightly new direction. Let´s talk about some additional measures that could help. The EU created a vaccine certificate that also applies for fully recovered. Different languages. Different cultures. Not a problem. Was discussed among politicans in the US but the divide between red/blue states and concerns about personal data/freedom means that we will probably never see something similar in the US. Makes it extremly hard to track immunity.

Next part. Solutions that could improve the situations for certain risk groups. I think by now I don´t need to repeat the details of the mentioned myocarditis/pericarditis examples. Option one. Easiest solution. Use another vaccine. In this case Pfizer seems to be better than Moderna. Haven´t done the research on Johnson&Johnson. Should at least mention that other vaccines exist outside the US.
But what if vaccination for a majority of children is not wanted. Well. We aren´t hearing enough about ventilation and other measures to improve the situation in public buildings or schools. And this isn´t a US only problem. Entire western world missed the trend.
Vaccination is still by far the best option to limit the damage and get back to a "new normal" but we shouldn´t forget additional measures. Imagine if anti vaxxers would focus on things like that instead of chasing new miracle drugs.

[luka_skywalker_77]

Sim, adding for your reference (basically a collection of natural immunity studies): 
Your Natural Immunity Cheat Sheet
https://rationalground.com/your-natural-...eat-sheet/

"I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong, and that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine."

And one other, regarding trials and process: https://earlycovidcare.org/text/

In sum: "In short, while any individual observational study may be better or worse conducted, it is highly misleading to portray observational studies generally as merely “anecdotal.” Again, many of today’s commonly used treatments were discovered or validated through careful observational trials and only later, if ever, subject to RCTs. It should also be emphasized that this practice continues. A review of cardiac drug approvals and treatment recommendations from 2008-2018, covering 51 current guidelines, noted “the proportion supported by evidence from RCTs remains small,” including just 8.5% of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines and 14.3% of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. On that note, another review of observational studies and RCTs argues: “We do not believe that dependable clinical evidence only comes from RCTs….If RCTs were required for proof of efficacy of a given treatment, the practice of clinical medicine would indeed be reduced to a relatively few verified treatments.”

It’s particularly unrealistic to demand RCTs confirming efficacy against COVID-19 before using a drug like hydroxychloroquine for that purpose for several reasons. RCTs face logistical challenges. High-quality randomized studies require intensive preparation, controls and oversight. These expenses are often beyond the limited resources available in many healthcare settings. And poorly designed and executed RCTs can just as easily produce results that are meaningless or misleading – as has been the case with a number of COVID-19 treatments. In fact, some authors have argued that “in the end, an observational study with credible corrections and a more relevant and much larger study sample…may provide a better estimate [than small or flawed RCTs].” Indeed this is precisely the case with the small group of poorly designed and executed RCTs cited by critics seeking to discredit hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19."

It further goes into detail regarding how this played out in control trials for HXQ. 

Pretty interesting to say the least. 

[fifteenth]

I'm going to go ahead and put this in ROTW. Apologies to anyone who, for some reason, wants it on the front page. 

Also, thanks to everyone for a really great conversation. I don't think this was typical of comment section type flame wars.

I learned a good bit. And I may even come back and use some of the links or eplanations provided in the future.

[Mapka]

Sim, adding for your reference (basically a collection of natural immunity studies): 
Your Natural Immunity Cheat Sheet
https://rationalground.com/your-natural-...eat-sheet/

"I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong, and that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine."

And one other, regarding trials and process: https://earlycovidcare.org/text/

In sum: "In short, while any individual observational study may be better or worse conducted, it is highly misleading to portray observational studies generally as merely “anecdotal.” Again, many of today’s commonly used treatments were discovered or validated through careful observational trials and only later, if ever, subject to RCTs. It should also be emphasized that this practice continues. A review of cardiac drug approvals and treatment recommendations from 2008-2018, covering 51 current guidelines, noted “the proportion supported by evidence from RCTs remains small,” including just 8.5% of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines and 14.3% of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. On that note, another review of observational studies and RCTs argues: “We do not believe that dependable clinical evidence only comes from RCTs….If RCTs were required for proof of efficacy of a given treatment, the practice of clinical medicine would indeed be reduced to a relatively few verified treatments.”

It’s particularly unrealistic to demand RCTs confirming efficacy against COVID-19 before using a drug like hydroxychloroquine for that purpose for several reasons. RCTs face logistical challenges. High-quality randomized studies require intensive preparation, controls and oversight. These expenses are often beyond the limited resources available in many healthcare settings. And poorly designed and executed RCTs can just as easily produce results that are meaningless or misleading – as has been the case with a number of COVID-19 treatments. In fact, some authors have argued that “in the end, an observational study with credible corrections and a more relevant and much larger study sample…may provide a better estimate [than small or flawed RCTs].” Indeed this is precisely the case with the small group of poorly designed and executed RCTs cited by critics seeking to discredit hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19."

It further goes into detail regarding how this played out in control trials for HXQ. 

Pretty interesting to say the least. 

If you need longtime observation to see if there is any effect other than the known side effects, the positive effect you will find will be marginal.
Why even invest in something like that.
And I would love to have a cure.

[dirkfansince1998]

So the goal post moved from HXQ is the cure. To Ivermectin is the cure. First randomized controlled studies are used to make a case for Ivermectin and when those studies are facing criticism and even fraud allegations. Are retracted or at least removed from meta-analysis. We are moving the goal post again. Let´s ignore that the mentioned studies (for example Elgazza, Carvallo) are questioned because of the very same issues that are mentioned in the linked abstract. All of a sudden we should just ignore the results of other RCT and focus on observational studies which can be of higher or lower quality as well.
Quick advice. Don´t give up on the randomized double blind approach just yet. We are waiting for the results of two studies. Maybe they will find a benefit. Maybe they won´t.
Can already tell what happens if they don´t find evidence for the benefit of Ivermectin. We will move on again. Promote a new cure. My best guess. Budesonid. Probably the most promising option among the three mentioned drugs.