Originally Posted by
tossbag
100% agree.
I had the Astra vaccine, I did a bit of reading before choosing this one, the ongoing misinformation, in particular from the hysterical, incompetent, so called health professionals and government in QLD was bordering on libel/defamation. Yet the side effects of the pfizer vaccine were conveniently glossed over. People have the right to the side effect information of these vaccines without the hysterical rubbish from both sides, be it vax/antivax. And then make health decisions based on that.
Had exactley the same experience, though the most stupid respose I got was from an anti-vaxer who said "You know Astr Zenica is now altering your DNA!!" There WERE missteps around AZ, and some things said that shouldn't have neen by people who should have know betere- BUT science did it's thing and self-corrected.
Originally Posted by
tossbag
You say 'safe and effective.' Yes, for the overwhelming majority of people they are. But there are some people that may make the decision, due other health complications or concerns that they are better off without the vax. These people are being vilified by vaxxers.
Not by anyone sensible. People unable to take the vaccine have always been cited as a reson why people who CAN get vaccinated SHOULD> You mention people making choices for their own health. This glosses over the impact on others- particulrly those with conditions thatmean they can't take a vaccine, but are more vulnerable to the disease.
Originally Posted by
tossbag
I don't care for the anti-vaxxers, healthy people that rant and rave about vaccinations are a special kind of 'citizen.' The extreme on both sides are as bad as each other.
There are always extremists in any argument. In this case, which extreme (all vaxxed v none vaxed) would produce the better result?