Are our aniti-vaxers now pro Russia ?

A lot of the twitter and facebook antivaxxers are now into defending Russia, it's odd I don't see the connection, except to find something to disagree with the majority view?

Here he/she/it goes again. For the record Bluebina, please would you define "your" definition of an aniti-vaxer?

Thanks in advance.

My definition is as above, people who are pro actively trying to discourage people from having the vaccine, constantly posting obscure clips they've found from strange sites on facebook, twitter and sending them to their friends trying to discourage them on whattsapp. A good example is that undertaker bloke who people on here previously provided links for.

Not people who just don't trust the vaccines for whatever reason and don't have one, it's perfectly sensible to do your own risk assessment and make your own decision.

Have you taken the time to click and read/watch any of the links that C. Rombie-Coat has kindly placed on the forum, in this thread and many others? I suspect not, because if you had you would stop using the term anti-vaxer and start asking serious questions of what you were initially told by your own Government, "medical professionals" (I use that term loosely) and Pharma companies.

I have actually. I’m yet to see anything conclusive to be honest and on multiple occasions the links have lead to information that’s either wrong or even contradictory.
One I recall opened with something like “MORE VACCINATED PEOPLE ARE DYING THAN UNVACCINATED” and was clearly written by an author trying to prove taking the vaccine was more dangerous than not taking it. However when you read the numbers they provided, they’d made a schoolboy error.
Only 35% of deaths were the unvaccinated yet that completely ignores only 10% of people haven’t had the jab. Unvaccinated deaths were more than 3x over represented. Far different from the original claim the author and C Rombie attempted to make.

I have actually. I’m yet to see anything conclusive to be honest and on multiple occasions the links have lead to information that’s either wrong or even contradictory.
One I recall opened with something like “MORE VACCINATED PEOPLE ARE DYING THAN UNVACCINATED” and was clearly written by an author trying to prove taking the vaccine was more dangerous than not taking it. However when you read the numbers they provided, they’d made a schoolboy error.
Only 35% of deaths were the unvaccinated yet that completely ignores only 10% of people haven’t had the jab. Unvaccinated deaths were more than 3x over represented. Far different from the original claim the author and C Rombie attempted to make.

Not been paying attention for a while but if it is the report I'm thinking of pretty much sure it was adjusted figures per 100,000.

So in all but one age group there were more people per 100K who were vaccinated getting infected than there were per 100K unvaccinated getting infected. So the fact that there is a larger proportion of people vaccinated in the total population is irrelevant and doesn't skew the figures.

Other arguments could and have been made such as the data is slightly skewed by the unvaccinated also potentially being less likely to test as regularly, although this is currently an unsubstantiated claim and as such can only ever be theory.

The article was based around the data in this report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1_2022.pdf

If that is the one you're referring to? Apologies if not the same report.


Going back to the main question of the thread I'd agree with the suggestion made that there is probably a correlation between those who still trust the legacy media and those who don't trust it at all and are seeking further information.

The obvious flaw in the latter approach is in today's world of information overload, it is very easy for false information to be spread and often it is done so with a fairly heavy dose of truth mixed in to add authenticity.

That's not to say that the old trope of dismissing something because 'it was some guy on the internet' is correct.

There has been a huge amount of exceptionally well researched information that generally gets overlooked by the legacy media that is uncovered by independent authors.

However, it is important to cross-reference reports, read the actual data, take nothing at face value, especially if it confirms your own bias and think critically. These are all things we would expect from journalists.

The mistake of those who still trust the authority of the legacy media is assuming that journalists still do any of this. They don't.

Journalism used to be about reporting all sides of a story and allowing the reader to come to a conclusion. Now it is about weaving a narrative and expressing an opinion. Most journalists are at best incompetent and at worst, activists and propagandists for their team.

Case in point the Ghost of Kiev. The Times, The Mail and a whole bunch of others ran the article stating he had finally died after downing 40 Russian planes (impressive considering that was more than the total of all Russian planes taken down at the time as reported by Ukraine government).

CNN even went so far as to run 'exclusive footage' of him in action. Unfortunately the footage was actually from a video game called Digital Combat Simulator: World which was published in 2013.

Yet, somewhat embarrassingly Ukraine officials have now admitted that the whole thing was a myth, designed to boost morale of the Ukrainian people and highlight their heroic battle across the world. It was designed to paint the Ukrainians as brave under-dogs somehow holding their own against the might of Russia against all the odds.

Everyone loves an underdog right? Everyone hates bullies obviously? So it makes it easy for us. No thinking required, Ukraine good, Russia bad. Pop a blue and yellow flag on your Twitter profile and on we go, with a new group for us to focus all our manufactured hate and repressed anger towards. All good. New upload complete.

Except that it was nothing but propaganda, built on empty lies and cool graphics from a video game from a decade ago.

This leads to the obvious question that if this was propaganda, that was unwittingly backed up by most major news organisations then what else is?

How can we possible trust anything that is presented to us as fact, when the truth is openly manipulated and moulded into something convenient that gets us all nodding in agreement like Pavlov's bloody dogs.

And here is the critical bit. Both sides do it.

The Russian propaganda has been insane, we don't get to see most of it (there is no point its not meant for us,) but its there in equal amounts. Russian state TV ran a whole documentary about how they could, if they chose wipe out all of the UK with a nuclear tsunami about a week ago. There have been some very weird pop-concerts/military parades going on and some very cringey ads about the Russian army liberating their Brothers in Donetsk.

Thing is some of it is probably true - again on both sides, but there is so much exaggeration and outright lies on both sides it is impossible to define what is truth and what is propaganda.

Meanwhile, pretty much everyone who is in a position to bring about the end of the War also has a vested interest in keeping it going - particularly Putin, Biden and Zelensky.

So while I won't speak for anyone else, I'd say that for myself at least, it is not so much a case of being pro-russia, but more sceptical of the motivation on all sides of this conflict and it is that same (i'd argue healthy) scepticism that I've held around the whole COVID saga as well.

Although, if i'm honest, I've come to the conclusion there is little that can be done about it, those who want to continue to put their faith in the authority and gravitas of the reputation of the establishment, who hold on to the idea of a free press as something alive and well, will do so despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

Those who have lost faith in that same establishment, have done so unequivocally, and in such totality that I very much doubt that any degree of trust can ever be restored.

I'll be honest though, the tone of civility that has returned to opposing conversations such as it has in this thread is one glimmer of hope that we may one day move back to finding a middle ground - so good job lads

Anyways, that's my head back above the parapet for quite long enough now, going back to lurking in the background again.

I suppose the initial question should have been:
' Are there any anti-covid vaxxers that disagree with the Russian treatment of Ukraine?'

We appear to have gone down the road of suggesting that the MSM have got it all wrong and that you need to spend many hours to learn the truth about both the evil covid vaccines and those naughty Ukraine people.

One last thing...

Wouldn't someone who is 'anti-covid vaxxer' be someone who is against COVID (i.e. anti-covid) and had a vaccination (i.e. a vaxxer)