If people are willing to be honest the exchange began as a result of the way the poster placed that article by itself in that particular thread, the person who reposted here brought some points like cases of person not actually being vaccinated at the time that’s obviously a valid point to make
A pressing concern seems to be accuracy of information if people here have access to what they consider better reliable information why do they not post in that thread to benefit everybody instead of criticising, ridiculing and shaming? I know that goes both ways and it’s not helpful because it puts people off from contributing when it gets like that
A positive result of that exchange that should please people here is it’s been discussed try to only post deaths confirmed to be connected because apparently there is a specific sudden death thread now
Poster has said about being kind in real life well let’s just start with being civil online to get past this ill feeling so we can talk and have a little bit of a laugh together too sometimes why not
I went back to refresh my memory and I have to respectfully disagree with your first point. As far as I can see, the article was just posted along with its title. Said article was relevant to the thread it was posted in and the person who linked it did so without adding a nasty or rude comment. So I can't see how it was antagonistic to be honest.
If it's antagonistic to post links, articles, tweets etc without any commentary then I can easily find many more examples in the topic that haven't been described as antagonistic by you or anyone else. So, to be frank, the measure of what's appropriate or inappropriate doesn't seem to be consistent.
With that out the way, it's probably worth pointing out that there's a lot of history here. As you can tell, that thread is the 22nd, and each topic has 1,000 posts, so we're up to 22K now. It used to be more balanced, with people on both sides of the discussion contributing their opinions. Yes, there'd be the odd disagreement that could turn a bit personal, but by and large it was mostly civil.
Then we hit a point where people who weren't against the vaccines started to post less (probably because they saw the topic as less relevant to them) which meant the proportion of those against the vaccines increased. At that point - in my opinion - it started to become less civil. I suspect partly because fatigue was setting in, which naturally meant people became a bit more irritable and also I feel some were more emboldened to be a little more... forthright (shall we say) with their views in the confidence that they were in the majority and hence would be backed up by more people.
That went on for a bit and I, along with others withdrew, as arguments became repetitive, often rude/personal and it became clear we were unlikely to ever agree. This thread then became a bit more popular because those who wanted to discuss why conspiracy theories (and general anti vaccine sentiment) were/are detrimental were able to do so without things getting nasty.
I admire the fact you're trying to act as a peacekeeper. Believe it or not, I'm often a mediator myself in other places as I welcome discussion about pretty much any topic regardless of whether I agree or disagree; but I like that discussion to be civil and in good faith. While I have that type of discussion elsewhere, it's become pretty clear that it's now a non-starter here for all the numerous reasons I've outlined above. It's a shame, but that's just how things are.
Apologies for the very lengthy post, but I felt you deserved an explanation of the background. As I said a few days ago, you're very welcome here and I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, as I can tell you're respectful regardless of the topic.
Indeed, I think the main point of difficulty when trying to compare with other product rollouts is the compressed timescale, and the resulting figures which get grabbed and summarised to create the attention grabbing dramatic 'statement' which is variously taken as headline, quoted as absolute fact on a tweet etc, with the all too familiar absence of the qualifying remarks, footnotes...
A smidgen of truth is the cornerstone of every Truth.
End result, influencers at opposite extremes making statements that oversimplify complex issues and intensify divisions that most people would actually be fine to work around without making a thing of it.
OTOH we should not forget that gobshites at any extremes do have another purpose, they act as a beacon of 'do not be like this'.
Well said! It dismays me when I see mistruths being tweeted and then being spread far and wide. All too often, many people don't stop and investigate a bit further. It's so important to read beyond the headline to see if the punchy title is a fair summary. In this clickbait world, it rarely is.
And, as you say, that applies to both sides of pretty much any discussion.
Ensay! Course I don’t mind you sharing it here. I agree, it is pretty accurate as to how people are jumping to conclusions.
it’s luck. The anti vaxxer I know stopped saying the above now that he’s had it twice. 
I so wish there could be non-inflammatory discussions re: the vaccines where information ciited is mostly evidence-based not anecdotal or from Hopkins, Farage et al. It's scary how people who are caring/society-minded folk (whom I believe most of on these forums to genuinely be) hook into right-tending propaganda spun by media guru figures in the Mail, Sun, GB News, on mass media, twitter, etc. It's classic manipulation fodder, the kind to which many of its advocates are supposedly opposed. I wonder if there's a genuine blindness to recognising that there's a hell of a lot of manipulation going on to persuade people into believing in mass covid vaccine effects and sudden deaths as majorly vaccine-induced? That it's a construct by clever sm influencers, beyond the relatively small though still concerning cases of genuine vaccine injuries?
