That's not evidenced in most of your posts here.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
In a close work team of seven I'm the only one who is not vaccinated. The only one not vaccinated in a wider team of 20+, everyone is vaxxed and boosted yet have been ill with covid 3 or 4 times, it's ridiculous to say that the vaccinations are doing anything, they're doing tit apart from shingles doing the rounds. Though the penny is finally dropping because apart from a couple of people no-one is going for a booster of any type this time.
You must know what I mean better than I do then
You claim something from a sample of n=20 - this could be something to investigate further.
Fortunately we have data from samples n=100,000+ - replicated, robust analyses. The vaccines work. It's like claiming blue is green to say otherwise.
At risk of going down another rabbit hole - a coronavirus vaccine cannot give you shingles. I'm guessing that's what you're implying?
Most people aren't eligible for a booster, so it's unsuprising you don't know anyone going
If you include otherwise healthy people in this I'd say a big NO. What I see is healthy people e.g young, athletic being vacc injured or sudden death or heart issues.
It's such a small sample size, yet you try to make it seem like your experience can be applied to the whole population.
All my close family have been vaxxed and boosted - some have had covid with mild symptoms, some haven't had it at all. I'm triple vaccinated and haven't had covid to my knowledge. I also don't know a single person who's had shingles post vaccine rollout. I accept that's a small sample size and therefore can't apply my personal experience to the whole country. And if I tried to, I'm pretty sure you'd tell me that was silly. So why can you do it?
The trouble is you pick unverified examples to prove your point, and ignore the replicated, robust data we do have.
Scientists & doctors do not want young people to die or become disabled. Scientific advisory groups worldwide have independently assessed vaccine efficacy & adverse effects, and indepedently decided the risks outweigh the benefits which is why they chose to offer it.
As I've said - what you are claiming would require ten of thousands of experts to be involved in a global cover up.
I don't think you read my post. I'm not relaying my experience because anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
I could tell you what happened in my house regarding who got COVID and who didn't, and who was ill and who wasn't, and what happened with my mum's friends hairdresser who had one vaccine and her daughter who had them all- but it's irrelevant when you're trying to identify population level trends.
I'm pointing out we have replicated analyses from samples totalling billions of people.
It's because they distrust most scientific studies, as they think they've all got an agenda.
If you have the mentality that scientific advisory groups are all self-serving while people like GB News presenters are the voice of reason it's easy to see how they can get to that point.
This.
People say there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission, reduce the risk of severe illness/death, have any efficacy or there is no real world data and it is guess work.
They do work and we do have data. It has been observed and well documented and there is a plethora of robust research studies out there!
I have read lots of the science papers. I don’t believe they all have an agenda and want to kill me. I still don’t want the vaccines. Feels like there’s some sort of “theory” believed here that if you opt not to have the vaccines you’re stupid and an uniformed conspiracy theorist but if you take the vaccines you’re a good girl/boy with the best education known to man.
I can only go on what I see, what I hear, what I know in my work, community etc., I'm not trying to pass it off as the whole population 
I can't say if the vaccine is causing shingles or not but in 40+ years I've never seen a TV and radio campaign about shingles that constantly like it has for the past 6 months.
I can't say if the vaccine is causing shingles or not but in 40+ years I've never seen a TV and radio campaign about shingles that constantly like it has for the past 6 months.
There's been small sample sizes used in a lot of ONS data ... the JCVI have decided not to offer it to under 12's why would that be if the benefits outweigh the risk ?
Lord knows people have enough to worry about in this day and age.I can only go on what I see, what I hear, what I know in my work, community etc., I'm not trying to pass it off as the whole population
I can't say if the vaccine is causing shingles or not but in 40+ years I've never seen a TV and radio campaign about shingles that constantly like it has for the past 6 months.
If you have been vaccinated (for anything) you may get side effects, which in rare cases can be serious. The key thing is that these will emerge in the short term. This is due to how vaccines work - no matter what mechanism they are using.
You will not suddenly get shingles or drop dead months later from the coronavirus vaccine or any other vaccine.
Not vaccines alone , there's other factors at play , even Whitty has had to change his statements to include them.This.
People say there is no evidence the vaccines reduce transmission, reduce the risk of severe illness/death, have any efficacy or there is no real world data and it is guess work.
They do work and we do have data. It has been observed and well documented and there is a plethora of robust research studies out there!
Monga your debating style is baffling to me.
The JCVI have decided not to offer the booster to under 12s (or under 65s for that matter), because it's not considered worthwhile. I'm not aware that they've released the rationale for this yet, or how you know what data sets were used in decision making.
I think you quoted the wrong person for the second part of your post.
Your last sentence is the key bit for me. Unfortunately when younger people have medical issues even now, some of those who are against the covid vaccines will imply (or say) that it's vaccine related.
Even though the person almost certainly had their vaccine ages ago.
Apologies @Ensay, too many posts!
I'm not cherry picking at all ,you stated they want to protect young people that small studies are useless I'm simply pointing out the facts ...yet again
Ah it's okay, it's quite busy here this evening! I knew who you meant, as I think we were making similar points, though you said it better than I did. (It's been a long day.
)This is what I mean @monga - I'm not accusing you of cherry picking. How could I when we're not in a conversation when you're giving examples? This doesn't make any sense.I'm not cherry picking at all ,you stated they want to protect young people that small studies are ueless I'm simply pointing out the facts ...yet again
I said that yes policy decisions can use smaller samples of data but this isn't best practise, and is considered cherry picking (particularly if you're ignoring data that doesn't align with your findings and pulling out examples that prove your point).
I've also never said that small studies are "useless", I've pointed out that ignoring large samples in favour of anecdotes is illogical. Sometimes smaller or low quality studies are all we have to go on, but this isn't the case for vaccine efficacy or safety because we do now have these larger robust studies.
Again - this isn't some controversial idea or my own opinion I've thought up and decided I must share, it's the basis of evidence based medicine (and basic logic)
- Status