Anon~658 comes on this forum to call someone out as an anonymous poster. Cowards call people out while anonymously posting.

Do you see how that works???

The problem is you're trying to apply logic to Bogut.

Bogut hasn't been anti-Vax, he's been anti the government coercing people to get it by taking away their jobs/freedoms if they don't comply. He's mostly outspoken about government corruption in general.

These MRNA vaccines are a new technology never used before without any long term safety data. They're very different from traditional vaccines which most people do in fact trust, only a very small percentage of people are anti all vaccines.

It's most likely the MRNA vaccines will be fine in the long term, but with that slight level of the unknown, it's reasonable for some people to remain hesitant for now without being treated like dirty criminals.

The problem is the media and general public are using a broad brush to label all hesitant people as anti-vax conspiracy theorists and it's creating anxiety and division in society.

He isn't anti-vax though? He has said many time he believes that it should be up to the individual. He does not believe that people should be coerced into taking the vaccine. That is his position as I understand it.

Yes, MRNA Vaccines are new technology.

But is the Astra an MRNA vaccine?

If you're not anti-VAD, just anti MRNA/ "experimental" vaccine, it just limits your choices of vaccine.

What makes anyone think Bogut is "anti-vax".

Firstly, I reckon Bogut is vaccinated against covid.

Much like Joe Rogan.

Both these public figures have criticized the safety of the COVID vaccines and/or vaccine mandates, however to my knowledge, neither has explicitly stated whether they were vaxxed? (Although I don't listen to either of them. Maybe they have?).

Secondly, if Bogut is against the covid vaxxes and remained unvaxxed, how does that make him an "anti-vaxxer". 80% of COVID vaccine hesitant people have vaccinated themselves and their kids for overseas travel and standard immunisations, but are questioning a vaccine developed last year.

It's just clickbait media referring to them as "anti vaxxers".

"But is the Astra an MRNA vaccine?“

Good point - AZ isn't, I think Pfizer and Moderna are the two mRNA ones.

Don’t know about the sino or sputnik ones.

Looks like the new technology could be beneficial for preventing HIV, there are some serious strides in that area. I do wonder if they increase in funding towards vaccine research for covid will have a beneficial incidental affect on other diseases.

OP, I'd guess there are more issues at play here than just an opinion on vaccines. Not convinced trying to play gotcha over it achieves a great deal beside pit two sides against each other and get backs up. The idea of finding someone with clout to dispute it with him on your behalf is just odd.

Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA, AZ is viral vector, both types are new and not completed full testing, hence hesitancy existing in society

Novavax (Covavax in other regions) is the first true (typical) vaccine in that it contains the spike protein of the virus. This is potentially being combined with flu shot for a one dose double cover type vaccine

sadly, still going through testing, but passed in US and almost in India from researching on web.

mRNA inject something to trigger your body to produce spike proteins, so Movavax will skip the cell manipulation bit and jump straight into giving you the spike protein to learn to fight against it. From videos I have seen on this one it is side effect free and higher efficacy than others. Not sure if a single or double shot as not seen that detail.

and now they are talking of releasing the treatment pills (albeit very expensive) for use in Australia.

options are there, just a matter of timing.

some people will always choose not to vaccinate, that is their choice. I am vaccinated for everything but I have never had a flu vaccine. plenty of people like me, we are not anti vax. nobody has ever had issues with non vaccinated for flu. not arguing

If the vaccine prevented transmission more would roll up their sleeves. sadly, these mRNA vaccines are only beneficial to the receiver, data shows this effectiveness reduces over time, just look at Israel where 6 months after your 2nd shot you are classified as unvaccinated until you have a booster. US and AU are not allowing booster shots unless high risk, so really you are getting protection for a few months. will be good for some if they get COVID, others will get no benefit.

Obviously those being mandated to be vaccinated or not work, will get the ability to work. assuming that once efficacy falls below a certain percentage that they are still deemed vaccinated. we'd have plenty in AU that are already 'unvaccinated' in Isreal terms.

Should be personal choice of the individual as to whether they get the current vaccine options or not.

Yeah, this take is annoying. They're different vaccines. One has been around for decades, the other popped up less than a year ago. I am sure he has his kids take the routine, tried and tested vaccinations as well. This post is just borne of the want to make people against or sceptical of one vaccine into full blown "anti vaxxers" - which they're usually not. It's a purposeful conflation made to take credibility away from people with reasonable questions about a vaccine that has caused blood clots and all sorts of health ailments and has, at times, killed otherwise healthy people

"He was anti grand finals a few seasons back"

We didn't really know what we were dealing with back then. I think it's fair to say your approach to an issue changes the more you understand it

" has caused blood clots and all sorts of health ailments and has, at times, killed otherwise healthy people"

For the reasonable questions the answers have been provided by the experts. There's an element of people not gauging or understanding risks very well and media hysteria making the risk sound larger than it really is.

I think that’s the biggest issue for “vaccine hesitancy” - once someone goes to their GP to have the conversation about it, they end up getting the vaccine.

Australia reaching 90% will be down to how many with “hesitancy” can be convinced to chat to a GP, opposed to “anti-vaxxors” who aren’t willing to ask or listen to the right people.

I know so many people who have had fever and missed a day of work after these vaccines.

OK, no big deal, right? It's only a fever? Well kind of.

My employer pays for flu vaccines every year. About half the office gets one. I don't know many people who've missed a day off work after the flu vax?

So my question is- This is a new vaccine technology. If short term side effects are significantly more than any other vaccine in history, how can we be confident long term side effects won't likewise be significantly more?

The standard answer from the experts is "Based on the history of vaccines, we can be confident side effects appear within 2 months".

Doesn't really answer my question about the applicability of past history to a vaccine that, in the short term, is causing more side effects than any other vaccine.

The expert reply would be "vaccines work at an immune system level, and again, regardless of vaccine type, the immune system reaction is what causes those reactions and they should appear early".

Not sure how satisfying that is given mRna and viral vector haven't been used before.

I would encourage people to get vaxxed. Seems like a sensible thing to do. But at the same time, there does seem to be significant uncertainty so we should all remain humble.

[Not sure how satisfying that is given mRna and viral vector haven't been used before.]

Specifically when they work on more of a genetic level than other vaccines.

Again, I encourage people to get vaxxed regardless. It probably benefits you, your community and your country.

But I do think the novel aspect means no one can be 100% confident about safety.

He was anti grand finals a few seasons back.

" no one can be 100% confident about safety."

When does that ever apply?

Best way for people to gauge risk is really to chat to their GP to understand what is best for them in their particular circumstance - unfortunately there's still a sizeable number that are hesitant to go to their GP to chat about it.

Trying to gauge via media or their own internet research only serves to mislead - not the best approach to make an informed decision.

I know it's the topic of the moment and everyone loves discussing it, but for various reasons I'm not interested in every thread attracting constant vax talk so I'll lock this up. Hopefully we've established that Bogut is Bogut and that anyone wanting to argue with him about his position can find him on Twitter.

"the problem is the media and general public are using a broad brush to label all hesitant people as anti-vax conspiracy theorists and it's creating anxiety and division in society."

I think its perfectly fair for people to be wary of something new. Nothing at all wrong with that.

The problem is when answers are available to their questions and they refuse to acknowledge it. I've yet to see anyone who's proudly declining to take one of the covid vaccines that doesn't fit into one (or more) of the following categories:

- Thinks covid is a hoax
- Thinks its "just a flu"
- Thinks the vaccine is being used for some nefarious plot/agenda
- Believes in other conspiracy theories (chemtrails, Q, Floride water/smart metres are about control)
- Think the laws of the land dont apply to them because they're "sovereign citizens"
- Were strongly anti lockdown and any other measure to control covid and advocating that it should just have been allowed to let rip
- Believe their immune system is better than everyone elses so dont need a vax
- Share content that has been answered/debunked many times over

All of these show a complete lack awareness of the issue (and at times, reality itself).