Personal decisions? During a pandemic there can be no freedom of choice.
Wow, that says enough. And I thought anti-vaxx extremists were bad enough! Clearly there's a lot of competition for who can be most extreme here and try and infringe upon people's civil liberties in the process.
Avoiding vaccination = helping spread the virus, giving it time to mutate and transform etc.
Being vaccinated and not self-isolating also helps spread the virus (CDC can confirm this for you if you like), so I very much hope you are taking your own advise of having no freedom by avoiding contact with all human beings. Do you have a source that unvaccinated people are the ones allowing the virus to mutate? Sounds like the inverse of conspiracy theories that anti-vaxxers claim about vaccinated people, without having any evidence. The irony.
So the reason we still haven't stopped this virus is in fact you and your anti-vaxxer comrades.
Right, because the cases increasing by 20-40x since vaccine widespread adoption (that's now around 90% in enough countries) is all down to the 10% that have chosen not to be vaccinated? Not because pandemics can last a long time, like you say in your next line? Because if 100% of people were vaccinated, it wouldn't be spreading anymore right?
Yet again, another conspiracy theory, without any factual evidence. The vaccine is only designed to
reduce the spread, as well as provide protection, not eradicate it. Look it up seriously. Meanwhile the virus is becoming resistant to the vaccine, no longer offering the same protection it previously did or supposed to, hence booster shots are now required.
It's hard to believe it but pandemics can last a very long time. Google the plague or Spanish flu. What's so surprising about it? Why are you so stressed?
It's not hard to believe, what's hard to believe is that some extremists chose to blame unvaccinated people instead of the virus itself.
Unless you're living in one of these, you are still part of the problem, as you are helping to spread the virus still. Get it?
True, many priests are anti-vaxxers. As well as... doctors... I was surprised but it's true. People who should trust science and protect science are backstabbing it. I've heard at least a handful of stories about doctors advising their patients not to vaccinate.
Doctors don't need to trust science no, they should be in a relatively qualified position to verify it. However it's true most trust the science they are told as cba to verify it, understandably.
Unfortunately, there's not a lot for experts to verify right now, only enough to trust, hence the medical scepticism is based on lack of transparency, as has nearly always been the case within medical communities. Hopefully with further upcoming vaccine safety reports released through FOI (and Judge rulings) for the scientific community it will become clearer in the coming months or years how safe the vaccine is. Because in the real-world of science, doctors and scientists don't just
"take people's word for it", when an organisation claims something is safe, effective or otherwise. Instead they verify data, it's called peer-review science and is relatively decentralized.
Medical professionals et all are still waiting for this opportunity, while the FDA continues to stall, and Pfizer
can't be even produce any good-quality data as of yet.
This nonprofit, made up of public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license COVID-19 vaccines. The organization takes no position on the data other than that it should be made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.
In case it's not obvious, the CDC and FDA are not independent, they are governmental departments, with their obvious bias'. Neither do they need to prove anything either, they can simply leave it to independent experts to verify their data. This is how it's always worked in the past, even if it takes years even decades to achieve. Not to mention that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is a drug-based agency, clues in the name, not a vaccine-based agency (like the CDC), so they can't really be considered experts on vaccines in a hurry (but continue to be responsible for regulating them anyway), which naturally many medical professionals find relatively dumb. If there were a vaccine-based agency that was responsible for regulation, then there'd be more confidence within the scientific and medical community it seems.
Hopefully this helps to explain why many medical professionals don't trust the vaccines, because they haven't been given the opportunity to verify the data themselves (like they are capable of).
