|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
If the vaccine is truly safe and effective, why are governments not investing more to ramp out production and pushing for mandatory vaccination?
Not trying to discredit the cost-benefit analysis favouring mass vaccination, of course. Just genuinely curious as to any public health or economic reasons why vaccination is not being pushed more aggressively by governments. If this was a zombie apocalypse and there was an antidote to immunise against infection, you bet everyone will be rushing for a dose - from kids to grandpa.
I feel that if people from the top gave more of a paternalistic push rather than small nudges, vaccination will build more trust and confidence, especially amongst the conservative elderly. Ultimately, any half-baked down-in-the-middle approach (with different countries taking different tracks) is bound to raise a fair amount of suspicion.
|
|
|
No point in a mandate when there's not enough supply to meet demand as it currently exists. A year from now is when you'd really want to be going with that approach.
Problems in production and distribution are currently a mix of ineffective policy and inevitable troubles in a rapid rollout. The mRNA vaccines really aren't very good ones from a logistics perspective and it shows. Everyone is scrambling to do their best with a significantly suboptimal solution but we're running up against the very real bottlenecks of the approach that we have.
|
I don't mean a strict and absolute mandate, of course. But targeted and soft mandates. Targeted - elderly and persons with pre-existing conditions. Soft - penalty is being relegated down the priority or waiting list of treatment (not criminal sanction).
|
There are priority queues afaik in Belgium.
No soft mandates by my knowledge.
|
On January 07 2021 10:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 09:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Technically it's a reasonable take. However, it's also a misinformed take. The "covid-19 protein" is a spike protein which hasn't shown to harm the human host. The protein has no ability to reproduce. When it's removed from the host's system it no longer poses a threat. So the only window for it to cause harm would be from the moment of cell infiltration until complete eradication of the protein. This means up until a few weeks after the injection there must be signs of permanent harm - and so far there aren't any, even several months later. This means the nature of the spike protein doesn't make the mRNA vaccines dangerous in any way. Also, the infiltration of the cells isn't harmful either, because the human DNA is not being altered. As BerserkSword said, autoimmune diseases are not well understood. We don't even really know what causes them to manifest in the first place, and they manifest at seemingly random times in different individuals. Some people get diagnosed as teenagers and others get diagnosed in their 50's. I don't know how you can say conclusively that there is 0 risk of causing autoimmune dysfunction from an mRNA vaccine when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100045715&utm_content=deeplinkA possible concern
could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms
induce potent type I interferon responses, which have
been associated not only with inflammation but also
potentially with autoimmunity. Thus, identification
of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. You can't use that logic because it will also be right to say that apples might cause autoimmune dysfunction when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. Other than the fact that one is a man-made pharmaceutical specifically designed to agitate the immune system and the other is a fruit - the bigger point being that we have thousands of years to notice a correlation between eating apples and health complications, whereas we've had only months to do the same for the COVID-19 vaccine. If your position is that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause long-term complications, I hope we can all agree this to be true unless someone is able to prove the existence of time machines. No my point was that no proof that it is not is not Amy proof that it is and it the root problem with conspiracy thinking. If the apple example didn't work for you maybe 5g will. A hallmark of conspiracy thinking is only being receptive to information that conforms with the narrative you want to believe and rejecting all the information that doesn't. Magic Powers made a bold claim that any complication from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to manifest within the first few weeks after getting the injection. Certainly possible, although unproven. Nobody here is surprised that you let such a bold claim fly completely under the radar without scrutiny, but my response, which was basically a long-winded "you can't know that for sure," immediately drew your objection. If only you showed some nuance in your positions or some willingness to analyze anything objectively...
I didn't make a "bold claim", I posted a link that explains how the mRNA vaccines work and what the spike protein is and isn't capable of.
"As mRNA is extremely fragile and does not enter the cell nucleus or genome, it gets degraded easily and has strict storage conditions and a short lifespan. In animal and cell culture research, the mRNA vaccines induced the highest protein production within 48 hours and declined soon after. Thus, mRNA-indued protein production is short-term. As follows, any harmful effects of the spike proteins will be observable within a few days."
https://shinjieyong.medium.com/spike-proteins-used-in-covid-19-vaccines-are-they-safe-e1592b6ba8d3
This states that harmful effects will be observable within "a few days", and it explains why that is the case. The protein has a short lifespan and the induced protein production is also short-term.
When I posted that link last time (which I think was the second time in this thread) I only remembered that the timeframe to detect harm was said to be short, so instead of "days" I said "weeks" to be on the safe side. We've now had months to observe the effects and still no harm has been detected. By the time the article was posted, two months had passed.
|
On January 07 2021 18:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 10:54 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 09:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Technically it's a reasonable take. However, it's also a misinformed take. The "covid-19 protein" is a spike protein which hasn't shown to harm the human host. The protein has no ability to reproduce. When it's removed from the host's system it no longer poses a threat. So the only window for it to cause harm would be from the moment of cell infiltration until complete eradication of the protein. This means up until a few weeks after the injection there must be signs of permanent harm - and so far there aren't any, even several months later. This means the nature of the spike protein doesn't make the mRNA vaccines dangerous in any way. Also, the infiltration of the cells isn't harmful either, because the human DNA is not being altered. As BerserkSword said, autoimmune diseases are not well understood. We don't even really know what causes them to manifest in the first place, and they manifest at seemingly random times in different individuals. Some people get diagnosed as teenagers and others get diagnosed in their 50's. I don't know how you can say conclusively that there is 0 risk of causing autoimmune dysfunction from an mRNA vaccine when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100045715&utm_content=deeplinkA possible concern
could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms
induce potent type I interferon responses, which have
been associated not only with inflammation but also
potentially with autoimmunity. Thus, identification
of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. You can't use that logic because it will also be right to say that apples might cause autoimmune dysfunction when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. Other than the fact that one is a man-made pharmaceutical specifically designed to agitate the immune system and the other is a fruit - the bigger point being that we have thousands of years to notice a correlation between eating apples and health complications, whereas we've had only months to do the same for the COVID-19 vaccine. If your position is that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause long-term complications, I hope we can all agree this to be true unless someone is able to prove the existence of time machines. No my point was that no proof that it is not is not Amy proof that it is and it the root problem with conspiracy thinking. If the apple example didn't work for you maybe 5g will. A hallmark of conspiracy thinking is only being receptive to information that conforms with the narrative you want to believe and rejecting all the information that doesn't. Magic Powers made a bold claim that any complication from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to manifest within the first few weeks after getting the injection. Certainly possible, although unproven. Nobody here is surprised that you let such a bold claim fly completely under the radar without scrutiny, but my response, which was basically a long-winded "you can't know that for sure," immediately drew your objection. If only you showed some nuance in your positions or some willingness to analyze anything objectively... I didn't make a "bold claim", I posted a link that explains how the mRNA vaccines work and what the spike protein is and isn't capable of. "As mRNA is extremely fragile and does not enter the cell nucleus or genome, it gets degraded easily and has strict storage conditions and a short lifespan. In animal and cell culture research, the mRNA vaccines induced the highest protein production within 48 hours and declined soon after. Thus, mRNA-indued protein production is short-term. As follows, any harmful effects of the spike proteins will be observable within a few days." https://shinjieyong.medium.com/spike-proteins-used-in-covid-19-vaccines-are-they-safe-e1592b6ba8d3This states that harmful effects will be observable within "a few days", and it explains why that is the case. The protein has a short lifespan and the induced protein production is also short-term. When I posted that link last time (which I think was the second time in this thread) I only remembered that the timeframe to detect harm was said to be short, so instead of "days" I said "weeks" to be on the safe side. We've now had months to observe the effects and still no harm has been detected. By the time the article was posted, two months had passed.
I mean there is always going to be some risk that some unknown organic process happens which causes liver failure 10 years down the line, but by the time I'm eligible for it, it will have been about a year since the first people took it for a trial. That link explained why it should in theory not have any lasting damage, and with the amount of scrutiny put on it, I'm sure they've done DNA analysis on somebody at the 3/6 month marks.
Based on the risk of long-covid, which is basically long-term/permanent damage to basically everything, compared to the risk of a Covid vaccine(unknown long term effects, although based on known science it's fine), I'll take the vaccine every time, because by that point, hundreds of millions, or even billions will have taken it by then.
I also would like to return to my pre-pandemic life, to travel etc. That includes going down to the states on occasion, which quite frankly I don't think will be possible to do safely without a vaccine shot in the next year.
|
On January 07 2021 18:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 10:54 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 09:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Technically it's a reasonable take. However, it's also a misinformed take. The "covid-19 protein" is a spike protein which hasn't shown to harm the human host. The protein has no ability to reproduce. When it's removed from the host's system it no longer poses a threat. So the only window for it to cause harm would be from the moment of cell infiltration until complete eradication of the protein. This means up until a few weeks after the injection there must be signs of permanent harm - and so far there aren't any, even several months later. This means the nature of the spike protein doesn't make the mRNA vaccines dangerous in any way. Also, the infiltration of the cells isn't harmful either, because the human DNA is not being altered. As BerserkSword said, autoimmune diseases are not well understood. We don't even really know what causes them to manifest in the first place, and they manifest at seemingly random times in different individuals. Some people get diagnosed as teenagers and others get diagnosed in their 50's. I don't know how you can say conclusively that there is 0 risk of causing autoimmune dysfunction from an mRNA vaccine when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100045715&utm_content=deeplinkA possible concern
could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms
induce potent type I interferon responses, which have
been associated not only with inflammation but also
potentially with autoimmunity. Thus, identification
of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. You can't use that logic because it will also be right to say that apples might cause autoimmune dysfunction when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. Other than the fact that one is a man-made pharmaceutical specifically designed to agitate the immune system and the other is a fruit - the bigger point being that we have thousands of years to notice a correlation between eating apples and health complications, whereas we've had only months to do the same for the COVID-19 vaccine. If your position is that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause long-term complications, I hope we can all agree this to be true unless someone is able to prove the existence of time machines. No my point was that no proof that it is not is not Amy proof that it is and it the root problem with conspiracy thinking. If the apple example didn't work for you maybe 5g will. A hallmark of conspiracy thinking is only being receptive to information that conforms with the narrative you want to believe and rejecting all the information that doesn't. Magic Powers made a bold claim that any complication from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to manifest within the first few weeks after getting the injection. Certainly possible, although unproven. Nobody here is surprised that you let such a bold claim fly completely under the radar without scrutiny, but my response, which was basically a long-winded "you can't know that for sure," immediately drew your objection. If only you showed some nuance in your positions or some willingness to analyze anything objectively... I didn't make a "bold claim", I posted a link that explains how the mRNA vaccines work and what the spike protein is and isn't capable of. "As mRNA is extremely fragile and does not enter the cell nucleus or genome, it gets degraded easily and has strict storage conditions and a short lifespan. In animal and cell culture research, the mRNA vaccines induced the highest protein production within 48 hours and declined soon after. Thus, mRNA-indued protein production is short-term. As follows, any harmful effects of the spike proteins will be observable within a few days." https://shinjieyong.medium.com/spike-proteins-used-in-covid-19-vaccines-are-they-safe-e1592b6ba8d3This states that harmful effects will be observable within "a few days", and it explains why that is the case. The protein has a short lifespan and the induced protein production is also short-term. When I posted that link last time (which I think was the second time in this thread) I only remembered that the timeframe to detect harm was said to be short, so instead of "days" I said "weeks" to be on the safe side. We've now had months to observe the effects and still no harm has been detected. By the time the article was posted, two months had passed.
Are you objecting that you made the claim that any adverse reactions from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to be seen within a few weeks? Or are you objecting that that claim is bold?
I mean just think about this logically for a second and just consider how many health problems that you can have whose symptoms don't manifest immediately. You could have Cancer, HIV, Diabetes, High blood pressure, high cholesterol, Liver problems, thyroid problems, kidney problems, etc. People live with these things for years undiagnosed and completely ignorant. I'm obviously not saying that the COVID-19 vaccine can cause any of these problems. I'm saying that the idea that you'd have to have physical manifestation of symptoms within days or else it doesn't exist is just not based in fact. Every single day people go for blood tests or imaging and they find out they had a health problem that they didn't even know about. It happens so commonly there is even a name for it - "incidental finding." The idea that you can't have any health problem without having a physical manifestation of symptoms over a matter of a few days is just poppycock.
|
On January 07 2021 19:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 18:26 Magic Powers wrote:On January 07 2021 10:54 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 09:12 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 07 2021 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2021 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:
By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen.
As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked?
We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little.
For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance.
[quote]
Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive.
As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Technically it's a reasonable take. However, it's also a misinformed take. The "covid-19 protein" is a spike protein which hasn't shown to harm the human host. The protein has no ability to reproduce. When it's removed from the host's system it no longer poses a threat. So the only window for it to cause harm would be from the moment of cell infiltration until complete eradication of the protein. This means up until a few weeks after the injection there must be signs of permanent harm - and so far there aren't any, even several months later. This means the nature of the spike protein doesn't make the mRNA vaccines dangerous in any way. Also, the infiltration of the cells isn't harmful either, because the human DNA is not being altered. As BerserkSword said, autoimmune diseases are not well understood. We don't even really know what causes them to manifest in the first place, and they manifest at seemingly random times in different individuals. Some people get diagnosed as teenagers and others get diagnosed in their 50's. I don't know how you can say conclusively that there is 0 risk of causing autoimmune dysfunction from an mRNA vaccine when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100045715&utm_content=deeplinkA possible concern
could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms
induce potent type I interferon responses, which have
been associated not only with inflammation but also
potentially with autoimmunity. Thus, identification
of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. You can't use that logic because it will also be right to say that apples might cause autoimmune dysfunction when we don't even really know what causes autoimmune dysfunction in the first place. Other than the fact that one is a man-made pharmaceutical specifically designed to agitate the immune system and the other is a fruit - the bigger point being that we have thousands of years to notice a correlation between eating apples and health complications, whereas we've had only months to do the same for the COVID-19 vaccine. If your position is that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause long-term complications, I hope we can all agree this to be true unless someone is able to prove the existence of time machines. No my point was that no proof that it is not is not Amy proof that it is and it the root problem with conspiracy thinking. If the apple example didn't work for you maybe 5g will. A hallmark of conspiracy thinking is only being receptive to information that conforms with the narrative you want to believe and rejecting all the information that doesn't. Magic Powers made a bold claim that any complication from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to manifest within the first few weeks after getting the injection. Certainly possible, although unproven. Nobody here is surprised that you let such a bold claim fly completely under the radar without scrutiny, but my response, which was basically a long-winded "you can't know that for sure," immediately drew your objection. If only you showed some nuance in your positions or some willingness to analyze anything objectively... I didn't make a "bold claim", I posted a link that explains how the mRNA vaccines work and what the spike protein is and isn't capable of. "As mRNA is extremely fragile and does not enter the cell nucleus or genome, it gets degraded easily and has strict storage conditions and a short lifespan. In animal and cell culture research, the mRNA vaccines induced the highest protein production within 48 hours and declined soon after. Thus, mRNA-indued protein production is short-term. As follows, any harmful effects of the spike proteins will be observable within a few days." https://shinjieyong.medium.com/spike-proteins-used-in-covid-19-vaccines-are-they-safe-e1592b6ba8d3This states that harmful effects will be observable within "a few days", and it explains why that is the case. The protein has a short lifespan and the induced protein production is also short-term. When I posted that link last time (which I think was the second time in this thread) I only remembered that the timeframe to detect harm was said to be short, so instead of "days" I said "weeks" to be on the safe side. We've now had months to observe the effects and still no harm has been detected. By the time the article was posted, two months had passed. Are you objecting that you made the claim that any adverse reactions from the COVID-19 vaccine would have to be seen within a few weeks? Or are you objecting that that claim is bold? I mean just think about this logically for a second and just consider how many health problems that you can have whose symptoms don't manifest immediately. You could have Cancer, HIV, Diabetes, High blood pressure, high cholesterol, Liver problems, thyroid problems, kidney problems, etc. People live with these things for years undiagnosed and completely ignorant. I'm obviously not saying that the COVID-19 vaccine can cause any of these problems. I'm saying that the idea that you'd have to have physical manifestation of symptoms within days or else it doesn't exist is just not based in fact. Every single day people go for blood tests or imaging and they find out they had a health problem that they didn't even know about. It happens so commonly there is even a name for it - "incidental finding." The idea that you can't have any health problem without having a physical manifestation of symptoms over a matter of a few days is just poppycock.
When a substance is cleared from a host's system, it can't do any more damage. Any damage caused by the spike protein would have to take place while it's present within the host, which according to the study is a timeframe of a few days. Substances don't suddenly cause damage years after they've been cleared from the system - it would have to be the host itself that causes damage to itself: autoimmune disorder. This would be due to an error in the immune response (resulting in the adoption of a self-harming response), which would have to take place while the spike proteins are still present within the host. When the proteins are gone, no new adapting by the host takes place.
Autoimmune disorder can in rare cases be caused by vaccination, and the observation of a triggering event could happen years after vaccination, meaning the autoimmune disorder could go undetected in the first weeks and months. This is accounted for by using a large sample size of participants. The more participants there are, the greater the likelihood that such a triggering event happens sooner rather than later.
The likelihood that an mRNA vaccine would cause an autoimmune disorder is no greater than from any other vaccine, and could in fact be lower, because the spike proteins the host produces after mRNA vaccination are very fragile.
FDA approval comes not years after a vaccine has completed all trials but much sooner than that. This means if you're skeptical of mRNA vaccines, you'd also have to be equally skeptical of DNA vaccines. Why you'd want to single out mRNA vaccines is a mystery to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Big thanks! I was hoping someone had this information, helps a lot to understood it on an intuitive level.
|
Why are we not calling this SARS-CoV ll? That’s what it is- SARS ll- so... I’ve never understood it. This is a severe and acute respiratory syndrome. That it was discovered in transmission during 2019 is relatively inconsequential to describing accurately what it does without using an acronym that invites conspiracy theory while also using twice as many syllables to say...
Sars two
Co vid nine teen
Just strange and dumb.
|
In slightly better news, looks like the "lack" of vaccines in arms is more down to scheduling than anything, at least in BC. If you're getting vaccines weekly, it's easier to ensure you've injected all the vaccines by the end of the week at a steady pace than to try injecting all of them the day after delivery. In the grand scheme of things, it's a difference of a week which isn't huge given the number of people you're dealing with. It's much easier to schedule people around doing that, rather than trying to have a surge on one day. You also get some consistency by smoothing out numbers over time.
Covid19 is what the public knows it as, and that's why we call it covid19. Yeah it has a bunch of other names and nicknames but covid 19 is what stuck.
|
On January 08 2021 01:54 Lmui wrote:
Covid19 is what the public knows it as, and that's why we call it covid19. Yeah it has a bunch of other names and nicknames but covid 19 is what stuck.
Most people call it "covid" or "the coronavirus" around here. The former is catchy enough and less of a mouthful, so it's probably what will stick.
Better scientific name than "H1N1" applied to the swine flu pandemic since everyone still just calls it swine flu.
|
yeah i only call it covid. saying "nineteen" every time just felt really fucking tedious so i dropped that almost immediately. We ain't talking about any other covid. We know which one.
|
On January 08 2021 00:54 Alakaslam wrote:
Why are we not calling this SARS-CoV ll? That’s what it is- SARS ll- so... I’ve never understood it. This is a severe and acute respiratory syndrome. That it was discovered in transmission during 2019 is relatively inconsequential to describing accurately what it does without using an acronym that invites conspiracy theory while also using twice as many syllables to say...
Sars two
Co vid nine teen
Just strange and dumb.
Sars Cov 2 is the name of the virus. Covid19 is the name of the disease the virus causes. The linked article also explains why the disease and the virus have different names.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it
|
On January 08 2021 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:
yeah i only call it covid. saying "nineteen" every time just felt really fucking tedious so i dropped that almost immediately. We ain't talking about any other covid. We know which one.
I'd also be sympathetic to calling it "SARS 2" since SARS is a pretty solid pandemic name but less clunky variations on "the coronavirus" was what the world seems to have chosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
