WHY do people resist vaccination?

Whether it is or is not is highly subjective.

If we examine it in context with other pandemics, it is objectively inconsequential.

Not relevant. The Vietnam War was not a pandemic. Your false analogy is nothing short of Orwellian.

That is sheer speculation and conjecture, not to mention an admission by you that "heard immunity" is ineffective.

It is also a scientifically, medically, and statistically false claim.

At present, there are 44,217,318 confirmed cases, which means only 1.6% of those died.

The CDC's own claim is that only 14% to 20% show symptoms, meaning 80% to 96% are asymptomatic.

If you want, I can do the math to embarrass you, or you can go sit in a corner and sulk at having failed.

 

I just want to note that this is a good example of how the government has held a dangling carrot in front of our faces this whole time... a constantly moving goalpost that can never actually be reached... Let's take a look at what we've been told we needed to do in order to "return to normal" and how that has constantly changed over time:

** two weeks of mask wearing to "flatten the curve".
** two more weeks of mask wearing.
** just wear the mask until the vaccine comes out.
** only the vaccinated can now take off their masks.
** JK, the vaccinated need to wear their masks again.
** COVID tyranny remains until 60% get vaxxed.
** 70%...
** 80%...
** 90%...
** Vaccinations are completely optional.
** Vaccinations are mandatory in order to participate in society.

IOW, there was never any intention to "return to normal". There was only ever the intention to "fundamentally transform America" and to "build back better" into a "new world order".

I will provide yet another reminder that it is not possible to comply our way out of tyranny. We, as citizens, must stop falling for hatred and division, as that sows the seeds to divide people between man and woman, white and black, vaxxed and un-vaxxed... we must stop falling for this and instead unite with each other under the common cause of resisting these tyrannical government mandates (on masks, vaccines, COVID passports, and whatever else is down this pipeline) so that we can get our stolen freedoms back.

 

I didn't say it was, I said Covid killed 13 times more that that war. Its worth mentioning, because that war was a HUGE issue, but now that we have something killing way more people, we are supposed to pretend its a non-issue.

I specifically said it is unlikely to continue at this pace. You deleted it from my post for a reason.

Yes, please. Show me how 14%-20% translates to 80% to 96%.

 

Those of us who were alive and sober last year know that the fundamental change took place during the MAGA era. You own it, no matter how you try to shift the blame. Unfortunately you are almost guaranteed to vote for more of the same again, and again. Me, I'm out. No mas two-party.

 

Yet I suspect you fear COVID.

 

LIE. The fundamental change began on 01/20/2021.

YOU own it. The Biden Regime has been in charge (via installation rather than election) since 01/20/2021.

I didn't vote for Biden. I didn't vote for the foreign invasion (aka mass illegal immigration) crisis at the southern border. I didn't vote for COVID tyranny (aka mask mandates, forced inoculations, "papers please" passports). I didn't vote for crippling our economy. I didn't vote for worker shortages and shortages of goods. I didn't vote for massive inflation and rising prices of gasoline, food, energy, supplies, etc...

Both parties suck and are corrupt beyond fixing. That's why I am fully engaged in the primary process and am supporting MAGA candidates rather than RINOs. Elections are rigged by Democrats in big cities anyway.

 

I was around last year, so I know better than that. Its flat out dishonest to claim last year was just business as usual. It was a disaster, - a clown show.

I am not a party loyalist, or even a member of any party, so I own nothing.

You voted for Trump, which led to a total melt-down in 2020, and you'd do it again.

What is it Republicans? They run the country to the ground (happened with "W" too), and in less than a year they already pretend they were not in power when it happened.

Yes, you did, and it happened. The 2020 economy melted like a snowman in summer heat. In the end of the day Trump's 4 year economic numbers are among the worst in US history.

 

my son is a physician and he waited for both his boys to hit the 4 year old mark before getting their vaccines as he was extremely concerned with autism and wanted their brains to be better developed ... he is pretty well versed in studies on the subject and now my nieces/nephews are following suit with his approach ...

 

Its odd that a doctor would think you can become autistic after birth. But they are his kids, so he can take whatever precaution he wants.

 

he's one of many doctors ... do you know what causes autism? ...

 

Ok. Based on studies, which anyone can read, it is something you are born with, mostly genetic, although other things can contribute during pregnancy. Its not something you 'catch' later in life. You can be diagnosed later, although vast majority are diagnosed before age of 3. Based on your comments there are some who disagree with those finding, which is not surprising.

 

That's stupid because studies show that natural immunity + vaccine is better than natural immunity alone to prevent re-infection, and some variants like the Delta and the Gamma are pretty much prone to re-infecting people. Do these people think that catching this dangerous virus a second time is a good idea???

That's stupid because one, the vaccines have been given by now to more than 2.5 billion people worldwide and have been around for almost one year. The rare possible adverse reactions are known by now and there won't be any others. The vaccine degrades and is eliminated from the body in 12 hours. The likelihood that some sort of delayed, late effect several months after vaccination will be identified, and is still unknown, is as likely as being struck twice by lightning. Two, here was no short testing period. The phase I, II, and III studies lasted what they had to last; pretty standard. What was abbreviated was the red tape, funding steps, etc. A phase III trial ends when you have enough "events" (that is, Covid cases) to be able to open the envelopes to see who is in the placebo arm and who is in the vaccine arm, and meaningfully calculate the vaccine's efficacy. Once this endpoint is reached, there is no point in continuing. What longer time do people want? People who say that, have no familiarity whatsoever with how a randomized controlled trial for vaccines works. They just have the stupid lay-person *opinion* (utterly unsubstantiated) that the trials were somehow shorter. No, they weren't. They were of standard duration and standard number of participants. And then, once the vaccine hits the market, instead of 30,000 trial participants, it is given to 2.5 freaking BILLION people. So what do these idiots think that a longer trial involving 30,000 people would have learned, as opposed to almost one year of additional experience with BILLIONS of recipients??? So what the hell are they waiting for? What kind of additional data do they suppose is coming? It's so incredibly ignorant! That's what happens when lay people with no clue think they have valid *opinions* on scientific matters that they don't understand: they say the most absurd things, thinking that they are displaying wise common sense. No, they are just displaying ignorance and stupidity.

That's stupid because the mostly transient adverse reactions are much less damaging and much less inconvenient than what the virus itself does. A handful of people do die from the vaccines, but then, hundreds of thousands of people die from the virus. Otherwise, side effects are for the vast majority, pretty minor. Besides, if your neighbor has a side effect, it doesn't mean you'll have it too, since you're not your neighbor's genetic twin.

In short: refusing the vaccine is stupid. Period, full stop.

 

Please show me evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing arthritis.
I call BS. Your posts are evidence-free.
And Covid-19 only kills 1-2% of people but causes organ damage in 30% of survivors.

 

well, I had typed out something longer but I decided to just go with your expertise on the subject ...

 

It's stupid to brush off those very valid concerns and as far as immunity...STUDIES have shown natural immunity as more powerful then the vaccine.....as a matter a fact in MY world, vaccinated people are getting sick. No body I know who had actual covid is getting a second round of it. So.....just keep preaching wrong and bias info and you won't get far.

 

So, my comment "based on studies, which anyone can read", somehow translated to "your expertise". All righty then.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.....

 

Is it possible that some are just afraid of needles?

My local newspaper recently, in its editorial section, reprinted an article from Psychology Today, that proposed that this is all part of our flight, or fight, or freeze response.
<SNIP>
We might freeze the instant we see a car hurtling toward us, our bodies and emotional responses arrested until the vehicle passes by. Afterward, we tell ourselves that it was the only way to prevent death. (This is also a common response in victims of domestic abuse.) If our visceral reaction to the pandemic is "freeze," we might tell ourselves that the vaccines are harmful or not well-researched, so doing nothing is safest.

The visceral "fight," response initiates an attack-- verbal, physical or both. Once we become aware of our aggressive reaction, we tell ourselves the situation fully deserves our ire. In the pandemic, fighters are willing to take on all comers, defying the disease itself, as well as advice to mask or get vaccinated.

<End Snip>

The author goes on to explain that "freeze," and, "fight," responses repress fear. An example she gives of this is the reckless abandon with which teenagers drive cars, without feeling afraid:

"Rather than avoiding danger through caution, speeders overcome the sensation of fear through the pleasure of driving aggressively. Awareness of vulnerability is replaced with intoxicating empowerment and feels good-- far better than the terror it has supplanted."

She also points to "self-proclaimed germophobe," Trump, hosting super-spreader events, as an example of overcoming fear with recklessness, acting as if there was no reason to fear, or feeling invulnerable to any harm.

While I find this theory interesting, and do believe it can be used to explain some cases of fear/distrust of the vaccine (or the belief that immunization is unnecessary, since there is no real danger), I think it is overstated, to say this is the explanation, in its entirety.
Nevertheless, the behavior that common sense dictates, following this theory, can be helpful to keep in mind, as a possibly more effective way to approach & reach at least some of the vaccine-averse.

The author points out that those of us who are in line with science-based guidance, are merely reacting with an instinctual, "flight," response. Hence, instead of feeling superior, we should, "recognize our good luck & sympathize w/ those whose visceral reactions are failing to protect them...we need to understand, rather than dismiss or condemn, the powerful emotional forces behind self-defeating actions."

She suggests that we re-frame the idea of vaccination, to appeal to others' responses. For example, portraying vaccines not as "protection," but as, "incredibly powerful weapons to attack the virus, and vaccine passports as credentials proving we are armed for the fight." This actually put me in mind of FDR's words that led our fight into the Second World War, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!"

The article cites a successful example of the military disassociating from fear, the thought of talking about personal, mental struggles, by instead associating it with, "pleasure, empowerment, courage," in their suicide-prevention "campaign emphasizing that it 'takes the courage & strength of a warrior to ask for help.' "

As for the "pleasure," motivator (as I have noticed that Biden and others have tried to make the focus-- being able to gather together w/ family & friends), she mentions that, "the French use images of kissing couples to advertise the intimate, 'desirable' benefits of vaccination."

While I have my reservations as to how well each of these various approaches will succeed-- haven't I heard about recent anti-vaccine protests in France?-- I heartily agree with the author's assertion (which I'd call an obvious fact) that much of human behavior is governed not by science or reason, but by emotion.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...-reactions-are-fueling-vaccine-resistance?amp

 

OK, this is complex so I'll be long. I trust that you won't just say "Too Long Didn't Read" - it is important to get this right, so bear with me, please.
-------------
What are you calling natural immunity? Just someone's strong immunity system? Because that's not what the studies are addressing. Natural immunity in these studies mean someone who has ALREADY had the infection, which is a pretty risky way of acquiring immunity, given that this virus doesn't kill too many infected people but does damage organs in a high proportion of survivors (most quoted figure in studies is 30%; some go even higher). Anyway, I hope you do know what natural immunity means, in these studies. But assuming that you do, let's look into it.
-------------
Uh, no. You are misinformed. The ONE Israeli study that people are going on about had 3 arms... (arm is a set of similar individuals in a study).
Arm 1: People who had two doses of the vaccine.
Arm 2: People who had had the natural infection.
Arm 3: People who had had the natural infection AND one dose of the vaccine.
The study looked into the odds of the study subjects getting either a breakthrough infection (meaning, an infection in a fully vaccinated person) for arm 1, or re-infection for arms 2 and 3.
So the antivaxxers are going on and on about arm 2 having shown smaller odds of someone with the natural infection, to be reinfected, than the odds of someone who never had the infection but was fully vaccinated, arm 1, to have a breakthrough infection.
So, this appears to indicate that the vaccination is useless.
Well, no, because conveniently, the antivaxxers ignored arm 3.
Guess what? Arm 3 was the one with the smallest of the odds...
The study concludes saying that it is beneficial to vaccinate the people who had the natural infection; something you won't ever hear from an antivaxxer (they will only tell you the part of the study that SEEMS to support their view). Observe the study's last phrase in its conclusion (link below):
"Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
-----------
You obviously did not read the study, or you'd have known about arm 3.
I did. You should. Here it is:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
And that's the ONE study that had this arm 2 better than arm 1.
I showed here in other posts, several studies that showed the opposite. In science we don't go by ONE study; we go by a set of them, because flukes happen. I'll do it again:
-------------
Here is one, saying "Reduced risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination"
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w
Read this: "Vaccination offers higher protection that previous Covid-19 infection"
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html
Here is the British Society for Immunology's position:
https://www.immunology.org/coronavi...rces/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine
Here is what Johns Hopkins, one of the best medical schools/hospital in the world says:
https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/09/10/infection-from-covid-vs-vaccines/
Rockefeller University study - "Vaccination produces greater amounts of circulating antibodies than natural infection."
https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30...fferences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/
Another study showing benefits of vaccinating the people who had the infection:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v1
There are several others, but I'll stop here.
------------
I'm preaching wrong and biased information? Think again. Read the sources above and see for yourself if I'm preaching wrong and biased information.
------------
Now, if you care for a more complete explanation, I pretty much demolished that Israeli study in this post here, showing that they considered 3 arms but there were 4 more they failed to consider (such as natural infection plus TWO doses of the vaccine, and such as people who had a booster (THREE doses) so the study is very incomplete (given that another Israeli study, featuring 1.2 million subjects, much more involved than this one, found that boosters restored the initial immunity and actually multiplied neutralizing antibodies 10-11 times).
But here is the Israeli study the antivaxxers have been quoting:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...perior-to-the-vaccine.591504/#post-1072888005
This study is a pre-print, non-peer reviewed one.
If and when it gets to peer review, it will be demolished, as it failed to consider 4 other situations and basically compared apples and oranges.
-------------
You mention studies... so it would seem that you care for science. But then you say this: "No body I know who had actual covid is getting a second round of it." Sorry but "nobody I know" is not science. It's anecdotal and coincidental. Science studies thousands of randomized subjects, not just the people YOU know. And even this experience of people in your world not getting reinfected (yet), doesn't mean that they won't. Natural immunity does seem to provide some 6 months or maybe even longer protection... but the Delta and Gamma variant have shown decisive propension to reinfect. The notorious case of the city of Manaus, Brazil, where 76% of inhabitants had Covid, but then the Gamma variant hit and most people had it again, is a cautionary tale. Here:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext
That is much better evidence than "the people you know."
--------------
You say what I'm doing won't get me far. Well, if you think that 41 years of medical practice and research (MD/PhD) with expertise in Virology and Immunology isn't getting me far, sorry but my banking account disagrees.

 

This Covid vax is total fraud.

Nobody needs it.

Real America's Voice tonight said 50k dead in the US from the vax. Biden has censored the CDC from publishing the vax Death Stat, last reported by CDC in mid July at 11,900 plus over 1,000 fetus dead.

 

That's not what I was saying. I was saying they do something that is the type of thing that can cause arthritis. It was simply giving an example of how something they do is not good.

To use an example, it would be like if we were talking about chemical pollutants being dumped into the water, and then I gave an example of chemical pollutants causing horrible problems and birth defects in one situation in Japan in the 1960s. But then you demand to be shown an example of that specific chemical pollutant causing problems. It may not be a specific example, but it is a general example of the types of things pollutants can cause and that they are not good.

 

And you don’t ?

 

That must be awful, to live with such distrust. No wonder Americans can be so tightly wound .. they live in constant fear.

 

Good informative post......I’ll read it in segments.
First, natural immunity. A thought. I really don’t understand the promotion of natural immunity over vaccines. It too has a limited duration. So the idea is to keep getting infected when ever it wears off ? So, you get sick on a regular basis to keep from getting sick on a regular basis. Moving on from that idea.
Thanks for the post.

 

Really? What is it that "they do" that is "the type of thing that can cause arthritis"??? No, they don't. You have NO evidence of that, whatsoever. You're just spouting it out, evidence-free.

No, it's just you trying to attribute to Covid-19 vaccines, something that there is no evidence whatsoever for them to be causing or be likely to cause. It's part of your relentless campaign to present them in a bad light. So, basically, anything could cause anything... but there is no evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing or will cause arthritis or auto-immune diseases. Just in your anti-vaxxer's imagination.

I could say "maybe one day ivermectin will cause blindness." "Maybe one day hydroxychloroquine will make your penis fall off." These statements would also be evidence-free and unwarranted.

Some naïve person will read your post and think "oh my God, these vaccines may be causing auto-immune diseases and arthritis!!!" and that's EXACTLY the effect you want to accomplish although there is NO evidence that this is the case - with one exception, the AstraZeneca may be (very rarely) inducing auto-immune thrombocytopenia (it's one of the hypothesis to explain it); but not the mRNA vaccines.

You present evidence-free statements, in order to scare people away from the vaccines, like when you presented a picture of a young girl disfigured by smallpox, and pretended that it was a Covid-19 vaccine reaction, to the point that the moderators moved your post to the Conspiracy Theories subforum!!! Again, completely evidence-free, actually demonstrably false, but posted in order to scare people.

Who do you think you're fooling?

You said it yourself, these vaccines are different. Yes, they are a new platform (the mRNA ones) so to attribute to them the possibility of problems caused by some other platform, which would be analogous to your chemical pollutants analogy, is, again, completely evidence-free and unwarranted.

Fortunately for the readers, I'm here to correct the record, when you post this kind of misinformation.

You know, you want to question these vaccines? Sure, there are some reasons to do it. Some of the vaccines (especially the AstraZeneca, to some degree the J&J) have indeed caused some thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndromes; the mRNA ones have caused some rare (and usually mild and transient) myocarditis among a subset of the population (males younger than 30), there's been a couple of cases of transverse myelitis... Talk about the REAL problems and I can respect you.

But if you make up stuff wildly like the smallpox picture or this new idea of yours of auto-immune diseases and arthritis, pffftt...

Are there real reasons to question the vaccines? Sure, although the benefits still vastly outweigh the risks. But making up stuff is not a real reason. It belittles your posting and make people not take you seriously. Maybe you should learn this lesson?

 

They cause a chronically activated immune response.

This is the same type of thing in people with autoimmune disease.

Evidence of what? You're really being non-specific now.

But that's not quite what I said.

But logic would dictate there is a possibility they might result in an increased risk for some people. There's no specific evidence for that, of course. (Nor would there be at this time, since the vaccines have not even been used for very long)

My point wasn't that the vaccine causes arthritis, but that it may be causing something with bad effects. Arthritis is only one example of the type of thing that those type (or that category) of bad effects include. I was trying to give a more tangible concrete example of why a chronically activated immune response is bad.

Of course you understand the difference. I hope that's not too subtle for anyone reading this.