• Community Members: Please be respectful of other peoples' opinions within our online community

Austria planning mandatory vaccination for all, with prison for non-compliance.

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
If people, for just a moment, can come away from the "anti-vaxxer" replies and start to think scientificially, we might get the discussion back on thread, which is about mandates and the reasons for them.

People are leapng to unfounded conclusions that those who haven't had a vaccine are all "anti-vaxxers", which is malicious and plain wrong. People calling for things like, those un-vaccinated to be refused access to hospital is just based on hatred in my opinion (i've had mine, now you get yours!), not science. Again, I am not against vaccines, I will say that again, I am not against vaccines, and those who haven't had covid, will likely prefer to take a vacccine to reduce the risk of being hospitalised.

In his latest video Dr Syed reviews a pre-print paper from the highly respected Harvard of a wide scale study which found that out of 74,557 infection person days, absolutely none, zero of the unvaccinated who were previously infected were re-infected. This is the same conclusion as the BMJ paper I posted.

Given healthcare workers will be the most at risk of catching covid, they are also the most likely to be protected from re-infection though natural immunity gained during the time in 2020. Why would you sack healthcare workers be that carehomes or NHS when they are probably the safest people to be around.

 

travellor

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
So he is arguing that vaccinations reduce the immune system and vaccinated health care workers become reinfected, whereas un vaccinated don't?
How many in each group died?
Or had to leave the profession because of serious illness?
If nothing, what is so special about his subject group? 74557, and not one single reinfection?
That's a massive number as other groups have definitely had reinfections?
Statistically, it's unbelievable.
The best defence for covid is not to be vaccinated, but get a job in healthcare instead?
(Actually, the answer is "74557 infection person days"
That's around just 350 people working for a standard working year without being infected again. Maybe the rest did get reinfected? Statistics eh?)

Have a read of it here.


Look at the real numbers, then tell me vaccines don't work.
Not just one buzz line, that is actually out of context as well. They went on to get vaccines in reality. That's why the number of hours is so low.
 
Last edited:

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Again, I am not against vaccines, I will say that again, I am not against vaccines, and those who haven't had covid, will likely prefer to take a vacccine to reduce the risk of being hospitalised.
You'd hope so, and yet there are plenty of people who are not vaccinated. I don't think all of those have had covid (though that will presumably end up being the case).

From a government's position it's surely simple: you want everybody (except a small number of people who're likely to be harmed by that) to get vaccinated. If they've never been infected before, they'll get some (really pretty good) protection against infection, sickness, and death. If they have been infected, they'll get improved protection against infection, sickness, and death.

There's no downside: the government (and your employer, anybody who owns anywhere where you go etc.) wants you to get vaccinated if you aren't yet. (Where there are shortages of vaccines things can be different, but in the UK that's no longer the case.)

Maybe there's a case for not being quite so worried about people who've been infected sufficiently the they have good immunity. On the other hand you really don't want to incentivise people to get infected instead of getting vaccinated (or instead of waiting a bit to get vaccinated) because we know that some people will. And there's no advantage in having people deliberately not get vaccinated. (There's an apparently very small number of people who really aren't advised to take these vaccines, and that's something we need to live with. But it's said to be very small.)
 

mikeyB

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I think that the video over emphasises the "danger" of injecting into a blood vessel - the worst thing that can happen is the immunisation won't work, the contents of the injection will just be eaten up by the usual patrollers of the blood in mopping up alien bits. And there would be distinctive bruise and swelling if it did happen. Where are the reports of this happening?

That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.
 

travellor

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
I think that the video over emphasises the "danger" of injecting into a blood vessel - the worst thing that can happen is the immunisation won't work, the contents of the injection will just be eaten up by the usual patrollers of the blood in mopping up alien bits. And there would be distinctive bruise and swelling if it did happen. Where are the reports of this happening?

That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.

Not according to the news recently.
260079847_890139171864570_289509260189317912_n.png
 

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Not according to the news recently.
The rare blood clots (in at least Ox/AZ thought maybe also in other viral vector vaccines) are a different thing. I don't think anyone's suggested those might be caused by accidentally injecting into a blood vessel, though I might have missed that. (It's good that they seem to be finding the cause for that side effect, of course. That vaccine's much cheaper and just uses a regular cold chain, so is much more useful worldwide.)
 

travellor

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
The rare blood clots (in at least Ox/AZ thought maybe also in other viral vector vaccines) are a different thing. I don't think anyone's suggested those might be caused by accidentally injecting into a blood vessel, though I might have missed that. (It's good that they seem to be finding the cause for that side effect, of course. That vaccine's much cheaper and just uses a regular cold chain, so is much more useful worldwide.)

Not "injected into"
Leaked into, as in the vaccine has found a way into the bloodstream.
Which obviously would include injection as a means.

 

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
That doesn't apply to all IM injections, but in any event I was always taught to aspirate giving an IM injection, so it isn't necessarily a UK wide technique not to do it, even though there aren't any major vessels in the deltoid, but lots of little ones. The best place for IM injections is the largest muscle in the body, the gluteus maximus. Or to put it another way, the bum.
The shoulder is apparently safe enough, and while you might have been taught that, guidance has apparently changed.
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
The shoulder is apparently safe enough, and while you might have been taught that, guidance has apparently changed.
I wasn't keen on that video @Bruce Stephens . Started by saying he has nothing against Dr John Campbell, yet he's made time just to make a video criticising him.

He could of equally instead made a video about reasons not to aspirate for IM vaccination without any reference to Dr John Campbell, keeping it impersonal and dealing instead directly with the subject matter. Personally, it looks unprofessional to personally attack someone (insted of the science), especially when what they are saying is based on official guidance in many places and locations in the world.

This paper is a better source of information on the subject and shows many sources still recommend aspiration and others say it is down to the person administiring the vaccine.

 
Last edited:

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
He could of equally instead made a video about reasons not to aspirate for IM vaccination without any reference to Dr John Campbell, keeping it impersonal and dealing instead directly with the subject matter. Personally, it looks unprofessional to personally attack someone (insted of the science), especially when what they are saying is based on official guidance in many places and locations in the world.
He could have done that, but it wouldn't have been what he wanted. Dr John Campbell's Youtube channel is apparently really popular and often referenced. Dr Yan Yu has apparently been asked about them and wanted to directly address them. Presumably he's not alone.

I can imagine vaccine-hesitant people being concerned about this and wanting to wait until they could be sure they could have a vaccination delivered with aspiration. The video seems to me to address that pretty well: don't wait!

The review you mention doesn't seem to me to support aspiration in vaccination. If anything it supports the suspicion that this is one of many practices that probably doesn't do any good. (I'm in favour of people who want this aspiration being able to ask for it, in the same way as I think people ought to be able to choose which vaccine they get among those approved. I just think Dr Campbell's jumped on this probably incorrect hypothesis and is probably helping to discourage some from being vaccinated.)
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
He could have done that, but it wouldn't have been what he wanted. Dr John Campbell's Youtube channel is apparently really popular and often referenced. Dr Yan Yu has apparently been asked about them and wanted to directly address them. Presumably he's not alone.

I can imagine vaccine-hesitant people being concerned about this and wanting to wait until they could be sure they could have a vaccination delivered with aspiration. The video seems to me to address that pretty well: don't wait!

The review you mention doesn't seem to me to support aspiration in vaccination. If anything it supports the suspicion that this is one of many practices that probably doesn't do any good. (I'm in favour of people who want this aspiration being able to ask for it, in the same way as I think people ought to be able to choose which vaccine they get among those approved. I just think Dr Campbell's jumped on this probably incorrect hypothesis and is probably helping to discourage some from being vaccinated.)
I agree, it's an easy thing to address, to give everyone the option either way. It's not difficult to do by any means.

I didn't like the tone of the video, seems he has a problem, with something that shouldn't be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with aspiration. Dr Yu first brings up how many videos Dr John Campbell has made about aspiration....so what?
Then he questions him on "misinformation" because he only cherry picked an expert who "favours" aspiration and didn't also ask an expert not in "favour" of aspiration. But Dr Yu did the very same thing in his video, by only discussing reasons "not" to aspirate and failing to present an equal number of reasons to aspirate. Which by his definition is misinformation because someone is only presenting the view they favour.
He then talks about not basing the results of an experiment on one mouse experiment, but how many animals were the vaccines tested on before they tested on humans? None.
 

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I didn't like the tone of the video, seems he has a problem, with something that shouldn't be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with aspiration. Dr Yu first brings up how many videos Dr John Campbell has made about aspiration....so what?
I think probably because he thinks it's a marginal issue at best, so just doesn't deserve 5 videos (or however many it is). Especially with what seems like just a story (not any actual evidence).
He then talks about not basing the results of an experiment on one mouse experiment, but how many animals were the vaccines tested on before they tested on humans? None.
Which seems to be a false claim: https://fullfact.org/health/animal-testing-covid-vaccine/
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
That the vaccines were tested on no animals before being tested on humans.
Where does it say the current vaccines were tested on animals before they were tested on humans? From what I understand the current vaccines were tested on animals at the same time as they tested on humans and not before.
 

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Where does it say the current vaccines were tested on animals before they were tested on humans? From what I understand the current vaccines were tested on animals at the same time as they tested on humans and not before.
Oh yes, you're right.
Chris Magee, head of policy and media at UK non-profit Understanding Animal Research, previously told Full Fact that in the case of Covid-19 vaccines, data already existed to indicate the vaccines were safe, which enabled researchers to run animal trials alongside the early stages of human trials.​
 
Top