Steve got it right at the beginning, then something happened on the way to the fare; his reality clashed with the raw nature of existence in an Undemocratic Capitalist society which is ALL governed by greed

I believe the lies about Covid vaccines are the primary cause of the loss of faith in vaccines.
We were told they would prevent infection and stop transmission. Both were wrong.
We were told they had been extensively tested and proven safe. Except they weren't. The Astra Zeneca vaccine was removed from the market due to side effects. The mRNA vaccines caused many cases of pericarditis and myocarditis in otherwise healthy young people who never needed vaccinating against Covid.

DavidL,

Spot on. The problem was that government and the medical community had talked themselves into a corner by pushing the lockdown mantra and they needed a way to get out of the hole. Vaccines were that saviour. But in order to get the required numbers to sign up, they had to lie about the vaccine's purpose and efficacy.

And now that the truth is emerging, people are suddenly sceptical of all vaccines.

The sad part is that some of those who were trying to get the truth about the covid vaccine into the public arena and who were begging governments to come clean, also predicted exactly this anti-vaccine reaction. They were ignored and often censored and now the price is being paid.

DavidL,

No, the primary cause of the loss of faith in vaccines was a politically motivated misinformation campaign from those who have a simplistic understanding of freedom.

//We were told they would prevent infection and stop transmission.//

No, you weren't. The vaccines weren't meant to stop every infection - they were designed to reduce severe illness, hospitalisation, and death. As new variants emerged, their ability to prevent infection weakened, but they still provided strong protection against the worst outcomes.

//We were told they had been extensively tested and proven safe. Except they weren't.//

Yes, they were. The vaccines went through rigorous testing in clinical trials and were approved by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA. No vaccine is without risk, but the benefits - preventing severe illness and death - were clear. The rare side effects that emerged were far outweighed by the life-saving impact of the vaccines.

//The AstraZeneca vaccine was removed from the market due to side effects.//

No, it wasn’t. The AstraZeneca vaccine was paused in some countries due to a rare risk of blood clots, but it wasn’t removed from the market. It continued to be used in many places with updated guidance.

//The mRNA vaccines caused many cases of pericarditis and myocarditis in otherwise healthy young people who never needed vaccinating against Covid.//

Yes, some young people did develop these rare side effects, but they were mild and treatable. The risks of COVID-19 itself, which could cause long-term heart damage and other severe issues, far outweighed these rare side effects.

"No, you weren't. The vaccines weren't meant to stop every infection - they were designed to reduce severe illness, hospitalisation, and death."

Well that's just straight up wrong. In a previous thread I provided John Daysh with a series of quotes from various politicians and medical authorities who specifically said that that the vaccine would (1) stop the spread of the dreaded WuFlu and (2) stop the vaccinated from catching the virus.

Only later, when those things were shown to be flat out wrong did the effort to rewrite the history begin in the hope that the clueless could be convinced that black is white. They'll be pleased to know that, with John, in at least one case they've been successful.

"The vaccines went through rigorous testing in clinical trials "

There was rigorous testing but because they were anxious to get it out and thereby allow the government to get out of the lockdown mess they'd created for themselves, the testing was of a short duration and , while rigorous, not extensive. For example, little testing was done on pregnant woman which turned out to be a significant error.

The biggest problem with the vaccine was the claim that it'd stop the spread which in turned justified giving it to healthy kids and middle aged folk all of whom were effectively immune to the virus from the outset. In a rare moment of honesty, the Queensland health authorities admitted reluctance in giving the vaccine to healthy young adults since it was more of a danger to them than the virus itself.

"The risks of COVID-19 itself, which could cause long-term heart damage and other severe issues, far outweighed these rare side effects."

Its simply way to early to be able to make such a definitive statement which is more in the realms of propaganda than fact. You won't find legitimate researchers being that cavalier with the truth. Give it ten years.

mhaze,

You’re framing this issue as if governments and health officials deliberately misled (yes, somehow there are still no whistleblowers in all the thousands involved.)

At the time, the messaging around the vaccines was based on the data available, which initially showed they could reduce both transmission and severe illness. As new variants emerged, the vaccines' ability to stop infection was weakened, but they still provided strong protection against the worst outcomes. The shift in messaging wasn’t an attempt to backtrack because they’d been sprung - it was science adapting to new information, which is exactly what we should expect.

The trials were thorough. While they were fast-tracked because of the pandemic, that doesn’t mean corners were cut. All the standard protocols were followed, and real-world data has continued to back up the results. As for pregnant women, early data was limited, but later research made it clear that the benefits of getting vaccinated far outweighed the risks, especially considering the much greater danger Covid posed to their health.

The idea that healthy people shouldn’t have been vaccinated is a weak argument. The goal was always to reduce transmission, protect the vulnerable, and prevent long-term health issues like long Covid - issues that still affect people, even those with mild symptoms. Healthy individuals weren’t immune, and ignoring that misses the bigger picture of stopping the virus in its tracks.

Lastly, this idea that we’re "too early" to make definitive statements about Covid’s long-term effects is pure hedging. The evidence already shows that Covid can lead to lasting heart and neurological damage. We don’t need to wait ten years to understand that risk. Meanwhile, the rare side effects of the vaccine are far outweighed by the protection it provides against severe illness and death.

Anyway, we've been though much of this a couple of times before and it was a disaster for you. What makes you think this time will be any different?

I never had trust in them in the first place.

John Daysh,

"You’re framing this issue as if governments and health officials deliberately misled"

Well no. I've said on more than one occasion to you specifically that I don't blame government officials. They were merely mouthing what they'd been told. Governments have plenty to answer for in the whole lockdown debacle, but this isn't part of it.

Whether health spokesmen knew they were telling untruths is yet to be determined but at some point up the chain, people were aware that lies were being told.

Lies? They told us that the vaccine would halt transmission. It didn't; it couldn't; it was never designed to.

" the messaging around the vaccines was based on the data available, which initially showed they could reduce both transmission and severe illness."

You keep asserting that the data showed the vaccines could stop transmissions. But you never show that data. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Its a made up claim that isn't supported. I've already shown you all sorts of data points proving the vaccines couldn't stop the transmission, weren't designed to, and weren't even tested for that attribute. I'd ask you YET AGAIN to show the data that you claim exists, but I know that'd be futile.

Indeed your posts (the last being a good example) are replete with all sorts of assertions without the slightest attempt at evidence.

I get that you were sucked into believing the transmission falsehoods and that you can't bring yourself to admit it even to yourself. But the data keeps mounting that the vaccines didn't and couldn't stop transmissions of the dreaded WuFlu and just saying (without evidence) otherwise, doesn't cut it.

Speaking of unevidenced assertions...."Anyway, we've been though much of this a couple of times before and it was a disaster for you." I can't tell if you're delusional or just prepared to straight up lie, but its pretty funny to make these claims when its so easy to go back and check how wrong you are.

mhaze,

You keep repeating claims of "deliberate lies" and "untruths," but that misses the broader picture. Early vaccine messaging was based on the best available data, which showed they reduced both transmission and severe illness. Vaccines were never solely designed to stop transmission, but they initially did. As variants emerged, transmission reduction became less effective, but protection against severe outcomes remained strong.

You claim the data I refer to doesn’t exist, yet numerous studies (which you don't dare ask me to link to), including trials and real-world data, showed the vaccines were effective in reducing transmission and severe disease, particularly early on. If you believe this evidence doesn’t exist, I suggest you check credible sources like the CDC and WHO, which consistently supported vaccine effectiveness.

The vaccines were never meant to stop all transmission but to reduce severity and spread, especially in high-risk groups. As variants emerged, their ability to prevent infection weakened, but they still helped reduce disease severity - which in turns reduces spread.

You accuse me of making "unevidenced assertions," yet your claims about "deliberate lies" lack any evidence. If you’re going to accuse others of lacking proof, you should start by providing some for your own baseless accusations. It's easier to throw out unsupported claims than confront the facts that don't support your position.

//I can't tell if you're delusional or just prepared to straight up lie, but its pretty funny to make these claims when its so easy to go back and check how wrong you are.//

I just did. Would you perhaps like to go through this one again and show me where I was wrong?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23155&page=0

I didn't think so...

You're all bluff and bluster, mhaze. Your revisionism is clearly for "benefit" of your onlookers only, knowing they won't check your claims. Well, now they've got a link to click on.

Yes JD, that thread.

This comment pretty much covered your woeful display on that thread....

"So you call me a Monday morning quarter back and when I point out that was wrong you just move on to the next unverified assertion. Its like trying to stop rancid custard pouring through your fingers."

"which showed they reduced both transmission and severe illness."

So you keep saying. But I note that you never provide evidence for the claim that it reduced transmissions. Since the vaccines weren't designed to affect transmissions. it'd be a miracle if indeed they did .... just as it'd be a miracle if you provided evidence for your assertions.

mhaze,

I'm glad I got the right thread. It comes as no surprise to me that you don't go into any detail on why my "display" was "woeful".

I won't hold my breath.

You keep saying the vaccines weren’t designed to affect transmission, but that's just not the case. The data early on clearly showed that the vaccines did reduce transmission, at least to some degree. This wasn’t a "miracle," it’s just how vaccines work. When they reduce the severity of illness - by cutting down on symptoms like coughing, sneezing, and runny noses - it naturally reduces the spread of the virus. The less severe the symptoms, the less likely it is to spread.

For example, the CDC noted that vaccinated individuals were less likely to transmit the virus compared to those who were unvaccinated:

http://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/work.html

In fact, studies showed that the vaccines did help reduce transmission, especially in the early stages of the pandemic. And while the vaccines were designed primarily to reduce severe illness, the side effect of reduced transmission was a natural outcome of their effectiveness.

As time went on and variants emerged, the ability to prevent infection decreased, but the vaccines still had a significant role in controlling the spread, especially in high-risk groups. A study in The Lancet confirmed that vaccinated individuals were less likely to transmit the virus, particularly in the early stages of the vaccine rollout:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065%2823%2900248-1/fulltext

Another study in Nature also showed that vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections were less likely to transmit the virus compared to unvaccinated individuals:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron

You keep asking for evidence, but it's out there in credible studies. The more you ignore it, the clearer it becomes that you're avoiding the facts in favor of pushing a narrative that doesn't hold up.

I look forward to your cherry-picking of those articles, and the papers supporting your position that you won't provide.