FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Flu jab today, covid jab ?
Flu jab today, covid jab ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered" Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally wouldn't bother with any jabs anymore. I've had covid twice pretty badly even with the jabs done so in my mind it's pointless. " It doesn't stop you getting it, and if you had it bad, imagine how much worse it could have been if you didn't have it | |||
 | |||
"Not sure whether to have the covid jab, thought please peeps x " Make an informed choice for yourself. | |||
"Personally wouldn't bother with any jabs anymore. I've had covid twice pretty badly even with the jabs done so in my mind it's pointless. It doesn't stop you getting it, and if you had it bad, imagine how much worse it could have been if you didn't have it" That's my line of thinking. I had had 2 when I got COVID, wouldn't like to have taken my chances without vaccine.. I think if vaccine is wearing off you can get worse. Hence having boosters... | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. " A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease" 
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. "and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity?? | |||
"Not sure whether to have the covid jab, thought please peeps x " it's personal choice I've never had one travelled abroad twice during the pandemic and never had covid so it's up to you I know of people who have had COVID and long COVID and passed away or had health issues since having the jab so again personal choice | |||
"Not sure whether to have the covid jab, thought please peeps x it's personal choice I've never had one travelled abroad twice during the pandemic and never had covid so it's up to you I know of people who have had COVID and long COVID and passed away or had health issues since having the jab so again personal choice " yep exatcly this dont listen to me i wouldnt say either its upto you i couldnt care less but i will question the people that quote the vaccine saved us, imagine what id of been like without it lol you will never know but you might just of been less affected 🤷nobody will know and its impossible to ever know | |||
| |||
"I would get it if I were offered it for free, but I wouldn't pay as much for it as it's currently being offered for. I would pay flu-jab money for it, probably (and I pay for flu jabs every year). It's just money + potential side effects vs your personal risk if you catch it. I'm relatively healthy and I don't have any at-risk people around me so I'm not all that worried about it, better off spending the money on a good cycle helmet 🙂" so if it were free leaving just potential side effects vs personal risk would u still get it now after probably already been exposed to it and been relatively healthy? | |||
"so if it were free leaving just potential side effects vs personal risk would u still get it now after probably already been exposed to it and been relatively healthy? " Yes, because it's not one of those "one-and-done" viruses - immunity seems to tail off after six months or so, and if you catch it again the symptoms may be much worse (or better!). The risk isn't really very high for someone like me but if the cost is low/zero then I'm happy to risk a few days of flu-like symptoms in exchange for lowering it further. Even just economically, I get paid by the day so a day off is expensive! | |||
"so if it were free leaving just potential side effects vs personal risk would u still get it now after probably already been exposed to it and been relatively healthy? Yes, because it's not one of those "one-and-done" viruses - immunity seems to tail off after six months or so, and if you catch it again the symptoms may be much worse (or better!). The risk isn't really very high for someone like me but if the cost is low/zero then I'm happy to risk a few days of flu-like symptoms in exchange for lowering it further. Even just economically, I get paid by the day so a day off is expensive!" likewise with the pay holidays away are horrendous the week after 😂and who knows what thw symptoms would be like, i feel like its a never ending cycle if youve started with the jabs u are probably best carrying on as your body hasnt had chance to fight the virus alone | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity?? "I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands. So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? "more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? "give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor? | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor? "It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none.  . | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor?
It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none. . "not at all ive done what i need im asking you to back up yours with all the studying youve done, im simply asking a question to one of your many statements as i have another forum member and got no answer just a snotty reply and childish block | |||
| |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor?
It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none. . not at all ive done what i need im asking you to back up yours with all the studying youve done, im simply asking a question to one of your many statements as i have another forum member and got no answer just a snotty reply and childish block"It's not childish to block someone who has sent an unsolicited message about a forum post. I have blocked a man myself for messaging me calling me out for having the vaccine. It seems the anti vaccine believers can't be like grown ups and let other people make their own choices. | |||
"so if it were free leaving just potential side effects vs personal risk would u still get it now after probably already been exposed to it and been relatively healthy? Yes, because it's not one of those "one-and-done" viruses - immunity seems to tail off after six months or so, and if you catch it again the symptoms may be much worse (or better!). The risk isn't really very high for someone like me but if the cost is low/zero then I'm happy to risk a few days of flu-like symptoms in exchange for lowering it further. Even just economically, I get paid by the day so a day off is expensive!likewise with the pay holidays away are horrendous the week after 😂and who knows what thw symptoms would be like, i feel like its a never ending cycle if youve started with the jabs u are probably best carrying on as your body hasnt had chance to fight the virus alone " I'm part of a research project for immunity.. until they are ready to release the details for now all I can tell you is what my results are. I had covid very badly pre vaccine era... i was in hospital with it. Although then it was described as a non descript viral infection.. When they were looking for test subjects for the vaccine .. i volunteered... only to find that I already had antibodies so couldn't at that point help. They took samples then, and at regular intervals to see what my levels were like. They dropped over time..i then was offered the vaccine ( one of the first non test subjects to get it ) and they monitored my antibodies again..after the vaccine they increased again.. then over time slowly decreased. I'm really curious to see if I was typical or not when findings are released etc. | |||
| |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor?
It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none. . not at all ive done what i need im asking you to back up yours with all the studying youve done, im simply asking a question to one of your many statements as i have another forum member and got no answer just a snotty reply and childish block"One of the studies I referred to earlier, found a substantial reduction in Long Covid presence, severity and duration, amongst those people who had been vaccinated, compared with those who hadn't been vaccinated (71.89% reduction, achieved by the vaccine alone). | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor?
It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none. . not at all ive done what i need im asking you to back up yours with all the studying youve done, im simply asking a question to one of your many statements as i have another forum member and got no answer just a snotty reply and childish block
It's not childish to block someone who has sent an unsolicited message about a forum post. I have blocked a man myself for messaging me calling me out for having the vaccine. It seems the anti vaccine believers can't be like grown ups and let other people make their own choices.
"no it were a very polite message just simply asking for an explanation as the post had ended thats all | |||
"so if it were free leaving just potential side effects vs personal risk would u still get it now after probably already been exposed to it and been relatively healthy? Yes, because it's not one of those "one-and-done" viruses - immunity seems to tail off after six months or so, and if you catch it again the symptoms may be much worse (or better!). The risk isn't really very high for someone like me but if the cost is low/zero then I'm happy to risk a few days of flu-like symptoms in exchange for lowering it further. Even just economically, I get paid by the day so a day off is expensive!likewise with the pay holidays away are horrendous the week after 😂and who knows what thw symptoms would be like, i feel like its a never ending cycle if youve started with the jabs u are probably best carrying on as your body hasnt had chance to fight the virus alone I'm part of a research project for immunity.. until they are ready to release the details for now all I can tell you is what my results are. I had covid very badly pre vaccine era... i was in hospital with it. Although then it was described as a non descript viral infection.. When they were looking for test subjects for the vaccine .. i volunteered... only to find that I already had antibodies so couldn't at that point help. They took samples then, and at regular intervals to see what my levels were like. They dropped over time..i then was offered the vaccine ( one of the first non test subjects to get it ) and they monitored my antibodies again..after the vaccine they increased again.. then over time slowly decreased. I'm really curious to see if I was typical or not when findings are released etc. " ok that makes sense finally someone with sone sense and a reasonable reply thank you, im guessing the antibody test isnt cheap or quick to do or it would of been a very simple thing to do for everyone and mostly the vulnerable? | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? give me a scientific evaluation of whatever study u want on how any statistic can prove the vaccine either reduces or dosent reduce the effect of covid im not against the vax at all id just love to know how it can be said its reduced deaths /severe illness or symptoms without natural immunity been a factor?
It seems like you want others to do research for you. Whilst you do none. . not at all ive done what i need im asking you to back up yours with all the studying youve done, im simply asking a question to one of your many statements as i have another forum member and got no answer just a snotty reply and childish block
One of the studies I referred to earlier, found a substantial reduction in Long Covid presence, severity and duration, amongst those people who had been vaccinated, compared with those who hadn't been vaccinated (71.89% reduction, achieved by the vaccine alone). "Conclusions Current studies suggest that covid-19 vaccines might have protective and therapeutic effects on long covid. More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed, however, to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid.some other studies say otherwise and thats for long covid what about reducing deaths and transmission you quote about, i just cant see how it could be tested to work without no other variables thats why i ask | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Had both, but this year had them separately not on the same day. Covid jab gave me a sore arm for a couple of days; flu jab had no negative effects. " I did likewise but got sore arm from Flu jab and not from Covid Jab.. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Had both, but this year had them separately not on the same day. Covid jab gave me a sore arm for a couple of days; flu jab had no negative effects. I did likewise but got sore arm from Flu jab and not from Covid Jab.. " Yeah, I got a really sore arm with my flu jab.. but barely knew I'd even had the covid one x | |||
"Not sure whether to have the covid jab, thought please peeps x " Your 50 you won't be offered it unless you are classified Extreme vulnerable | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question??? "You ask the question, you get an answer, you ignore the answer and continue to ask the question on an almost daily basis. Nobody here can offer what you ask, it's clearly stated with relevant statistics on the ONS website amongst other scientific websites but you seem incapable or of understanding it | |||
| |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity??
I'm assuming that you've.potentially not studied much, or any, of the evidence? You appear to be mired in logical fallacies, apparently criticising peer-reviewed evidence and yet asking for undefined 'facts'. You refer to 'many on here' - who have failed to satisfy your demands.
So, let's stick with this as science. It's subject to the scientific method. Acquaint yourself with it. Then get stuck into the enormous volumes of scientific research and evidence that's been produced on this. As said earlier, this virus has had more thorough, detailed knowledge published on it, than any before, in the whole history of human life. Otherwise you're not going to be able to have meaningful engagement with anyone. You have a reasonably open mind, I assume? more waffle about reasearch and studies blah blah blah but no explaination to my question???
You ask the question, you get an answer, you ignore the answer and continue to ask the question on an almost daily basis.
Nobody here can offer what you ask, it's clearly stated with relevant statistics on the ONS website amongst other scientific websites but you seem incapable or of understanding it
"sorry didnt ask you nor do i want a reply from you | |||
| |||
| |||
"I had the first 2 otherwise I would have lost about 16k in holidays wish I hadn’t bothered ! Caused severe heart issue and was advised not to have anymore by specialists who said this was common , this situation is very common hence the worldwide lawsuits ! " “Specialists”? | |||
"I had the first 2 otherwise I would have lost about 16k in holidays wish I hadn’t bothered ! Caused severe heart issue and was advised not to have anymore by specialists who said this was common , this situation is very common hence the worldwide lawsuits ! " There's around 80 lawsuits and none successful as far as I know, out of billions of vaccines. Let us know how your claim goes | |||
| |||
| |||
"This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay. Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine. To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine. The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. " so you only get a payout if you're at least 60% disabled | |||
"This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay. Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine. To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine. The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. so you only get a payout if you're at least 60% disabled " Should be 51% if disabled. | |||
"How can anyone decide this for you? I had the first 3. Mostly because i couldn’t get on a plane without them. Haven’t had anymore and won’t be " Same, most sensible people balanced risk and reward and came to the same conclusion.. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay. Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine. To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine. The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. so you only get a payout if you're at least 60% disabled Should be 51% if disabled." ???? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Ide like to know how you all know you or anyone else had "COVID" as the PCR test IS NOT a diagnostic tool.The "virus" hasn't been isolated either, proven by information requests to various medical authorities,so how can you test positive for something that hasn't been proven to exist with a test not meant for diagnosis? " Oh that old bunkum  . It's been a while since, almost word for word, it's been posted | |||
"Ide like to know how you all know you or anyone else had "COVID" as the PCR test IS NOT a diagnostic tool.The "virus" hasn't been isolated either, proven by information requests to various medical authorities,so how can you test positive for something that hasn't been proven to exist with a test not meant for diagnosis? " Well, erm. As far as I have read, Polymerase chain reaction is used to fill in a DNA/RNA genetic sequence, by making it long enough to be distinguished definitively from another other dna/rna sequence of the billions? of sequences on databases out there. I suppose there is a problem if you grab a snippet of sequence and by the time its large enough to be distinguished its actually mimicking something else? I suppose thats why the overall fidelity is kept as high as possible by the amount of original sequence matter. When you consider the each of our cells are writing many half copies of our dna, every second, by the nucleus, to be received by the various organelles of our cells, I believe the average entire human cell contingent writes about a trillion copies of half dna, so RNA? per second, which is why we use the tequase enzyme from somewhere to replicate fast for pcr technologies. I'm winging it considerably here by limited skill and memory, so don't think I'm skilled, I'm just trying to formulate an answer. I believe the virus sequences have been many times posted on various official sites which also can show drift and shift etc. https://nextstrain.org/ I'm not sure if that helps or not. I'm a bit confused now as its not my forte. I believe your main point is whether pcr is really correctly used and is covid and its by now, 10000000000000000000000 trillion trillion trillion strains (probably much more... (many are irrelevant due to the spike anomalies making themselves impotent) are really correctly identified when it matters. I suppose mainly these days we go by symptoms. However, yes a dangerous influenza or other virus could easily make a mild covid seem useless. However, lateral flow tests use well known methods I havent looked at, to match a certain degree of covid but nothing else (I think that is the case) You could always ask the questions online or of specialists who may give you a balanced, detailed answer. Anyway thats my late night, not in any way special answer. | |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. A simple Google search brings up plenty of results...this one was top https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-05-03-ground-breaking-study-reveals-how-covid-19-vaccines-prevent-severe-disease
This virus has probably been the most studied in human history, with a readily available source of available information. There's an overabundance of antivax info too but that's not the interest here.
Long Covid has declined substantially, in large due to the effects of the vaccines. A study this year showed 71.89% reduction in Long Covid (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines. The risk level of it, for unvaccinated people sadly remains 'substantial' - Xie et al.
The simplicity of the contrast, between having infections that are more severe, leading to an higher incidence of death and having a substantially higher incidence of Long Covid, being the outcomes of not being vaccinated or reductions in all of those, if you get vaccinated, is the current choice. and the evidence to prove any if this?? Or we still using the "peer reviewed studies show" line?? Because so far after all thia time many of you on here have yet to prove it were the vaccine that reduced the numbers and not natural immunity?? ""Peer reviewed studies" is the fancy way of saying "real scientific evidence that has been examined by people that have studied science and actually understand this sort of thing". As evidence goes, peer reviewed studies are hugely more reliable than "I saw a tik tok that says" or "this guy down at the pub..." or "my arm hurt for a couple of days". My individual personal experience might be meaningful to me, but a proper peer reviewed study is more than just hearsay and speculation. Peer reviewed studies are documents that collect evidence, say where that evidence came from so that anybody who wants to can go and check it, that state what scientific method was used to collect the evidence and what mathematical methods have been used to deduce meaning from the evidence, that give the names and scientific credentials of the people that did the work, and the names and credentials of the people that checked the work. This is not to say that every peer reviewed study is the full and final word on a matter - newer studies might be made, that look at bigger numbers of test cases, or use improved methods for processing data, or notice evidence that had not before come to light. But this is at least science. These type of studies allow other scientists to re-examine the given information, to cross check the methods used, to look into the track records of the people that published the papers. This IS evidence. TikToks, YouTubes, mates down the pub, the opinion of your cousin, the dizzy turn you had the morning after a jab - undocumented, unattributed, impossible for anyone to check, not examined in any way by any person that is qualified to be able to properly understand the data - that IS NOT evidence. | |||
| |||
"Ide like to know how you all know you or anyone else had "COVID" as the PCR test IS NOT a diagnostic tool.The "virus" hasn't been isolated either, proven by information requests to various medical authorities,so how can you test positive for something that hasn't been proven to exist with a test not meant for diagnosis? " Just for your information, as posts like this have been recurrent since 2020, with frequent correction. The virus was identified and genetically sequenced in December 2019. We've had the data since January 2020. The virus exists and we have it. PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, testing is very accurate at separate identification of the Covid virus and many other viruses and material. It's accuracy helps with the diagnostic process. You could run some of your concerts through fact checking sources, as thousands of similar claims have been reported on social media etc. | |||
"Thanks, it was really meant as a rhetorical question as all the so called believers mock those who don't believe when their belief is mainly based on a test which the PCR inventor ( kary Mullis) stated isn't meant for diagnosis and shouldn't be used as such. As the so called virus hasn't been isolated ( proven to exist ) is it really this that has made people ill or killed them, or is it something else completely? When you look at the symptoms of "COVID" and compare those effects of EMF radiation therapy etc they appear very much the same which then begs the question what emf technology is everywhere and could affect vast numbers of people, particularly those with pre existing dis-ease or weak immunology. Just a thought 🤔" Your claim about the inventor is false. Try a fact checking service, as that's another false claim repeated a lot since 2020 | |||
"Your claim about the inventor is false. Try a fact checking service, as that's another false claim repeated a lot since 2020" He says it multiple times on camera. But your State sponsored "fact-checker" wouldn't have told you that.. | |||
"The virus was identified and genetically sequenced in December 2019. We've had the data since January 2020. The virus exists and we have it." And it was "identified" once, in one lab in China, and emailed to the rest of the world. And if you'd like to check that yourself you're looking for an interview with (if memory serves) a woman who was working for Oxford  who states the above, then goes on to say that thats how they managed to run the "vaccine" sequence in 2 hours..
| |||
"Thanks, it was really meant as a rhetorical question as all the so called believers mock those who don't believe when their belief is mainly based on a test which the PCR inventor ( kary Mullis) stated isn't meant for diagnosis and shouldn't be used as such. As the so called virus hasn't been isolated ( proven to exist ) is it really this that has made people ill or killed them, or is it something else completely? When you look at the symptoms of "COVID" and compare those effects of EMF radiation therapy etc they appear very much the same which then begs the question what emf technology is everywhere and could affect vast numbers of people, particularly those with pre existing dis-ease or weak immunology. Just a thought 🤔" Lol and I thought Billy Connelly was a great comedian | |||
"How can anyone decide this for you? I had the first 3. Mostly because i couldn’t get on a plane without them. Haven’t had anymore and won’t be " My reasons exactly, never again | |||
| |||
| |||
"How can anyone decide this for you? I had the first 3. Mostly because i couldn’t get on a plane without them. Haven’t had anymore and won’t be My reasons exactly, never again " So happy enough to have them to swan off to Benidorm but totally against them for health reasons? If they are that bad you would simply not go on holiday surely? | |||
" I had the first 3. Mostly because i couldn’t get on a plane without them. Haven’t had anymore and won’t be My reasons exactly, never again " The same for me | |||
" So happy enough to have them to swan off to Benidorm but totally against them for health reasons? If they are that bad you would simply not go on holiday surely?" It was a balanced debate for me. I so much wanted travel and sunshine after two years so I decided (reluctantly) to have the booster jab. Since Covid I have gone on one foreign holiday a month to make up for lost time during the Pandemic | |||
| |||
"Last Friday I had my tenth Covid jab and on the following Monday, I had my regular yearly Flu Jab. I’ve also had a Shingles vaccine a couple of months ago. I’m deemed vulnerable but after about the 5th/6th Covid Jab I took some Professional advice as I was getting concerned about the amount of injections I was having. I decided to continue having the Jabs. I had Covid in 2020 and 2021 but not since and I can’t remember the last time I had flu, it was way before Covid came along. I haven’t even had a day off sick in years ( apart from the two Covid’s). I will continue as I am as I believe they (the jabs) do as they’re supposed to." so covid twice even after 10 jabs | |||
| |||
"The evidence is strong that they prevent severe infection and death, including reducing long Covid. It's personal choice. I'd have it, if offered Please show me this Evidence cos I can't find it anywhere other then the lies that have been exposed. " This. I had the first jab and booster. Not having any more after all the lies and horror stories have started coming out. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Itll be intresting to see what info comes out early next year if mr robert kennedy gets in with trump " He hardly seems reliably impartial, with an objective, rational mindset | |||
"Itll be intresting to see what info comes out early next year if mr robert kennedy gets in with trump He hardly seems reliably impartial, with an objective, rational mindset "but the files he will Release wont be his mindset | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not sure whether to have the covid jab, thought please peeps x " I have not been able to sleep op. What was your decision.? | |||
"Itll be intresting to see what info comes out early next year if mr robert kennedy gets in with trump He hardly seems reliably impartial, with an objective, rational mindset "Always good to keep an open mind | |||
"Itll be intresting to see what info comes out early next year if mr robert kennedy gets in with trump He hardly seems reliably impartial, with an objective, rational mindset but the files he will Release wont be his mindset "Wot 🤔 | |||
| |||
"This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay. Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine. To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine. The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. " so if they deem your 59% disabled due to the vaccine then you don’t get any compensation? | |||
"This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay. Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine. To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine. The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. so if they deem your 59% disabled due to the vaccine then you don’t get any compensation?" thats what it says | |||
