|
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. |
yes!, why don't you double down on it; i expected nothing less here ...
@WombaT - that seems to be the case but testing is still ongoing; it's really hard to study/test for it.People who have started or finished the COVID19 vaccine series have been documented to have detectable SARSCoV2 by RT-PCR at various time points after vaccination, 6 although demonstration of cultivatable virus and definitive evidence of transmission post vaccination has not been assessed. It is not yet clear whether the current COVID-19 vaccines are as effective at reducing transmission as they are at reducing disease. Moreover, evaluating the ability of vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus after infection is challenging. Therefore, virologic surrogates of possible transmissibility may be a helpful way around this challenge.
...
However, the risks related to viral presence by RT-PCR may be modulated by individual’s immune status, as viral persistence after natural infection has been observed in individuals with neutralizing antibody responses after natural infection, without transmission to close contacts. 45 Although asymptomatic and especially pre-symptomatic transmission of SARSCoV-2 has been well documented, existing studies suggest that transmission risk is lower from asymptomatic individuals than symptomatic individuals. 46 + Show Spoiler +from a pdf i have: Transmissibility of COVID-19 among vaccinated individuals
A Rapid Literature Review: Update #2
Date of Literature Search: 8/23/2021
Date of Submission: 9/24/2021
i wasn't trying to take the BigPharma bad route 'cause fuck those dudes, they got payed big time, but was looking at a more human approach.
mother fuckers, you spammed 600 pages here, vilifying any not-vaccinated person accusing them of killing their peers through evil, blissful ignorance, while there's a good chance, since vaccinated folks have been traveling pretty much everywhere, that they might've been responsible for more deaths ...
|
You are amazing. I wish I could do scientific research this way as well. Just invent some bullshit, or misinterpet actual scientific facts because of a lack of reading competence, and nullify the actual findings the entire scientific community has gathered for the last decades, and then just insult everyone for not believing my bullshit conspiracy theories.
Sounds like an easy life. Despite everything science has done for us, so many people still prefer emotions and hatred over scientific truth.
|
On October 15 2022 00:28 Symplectos wrote:
You are amazing. I wish I could do scientific research this way as well. Just invent some bullshit, or misinterpet actual scientific facts because of a lack of reading competence, and nullify the actual findings the entire scientific commutity has gathered for the last decades, and then just insult everyone for not believing my bullshit conspiracy theories.
Sounds like an easy life. Despite everything science has done for us, so many people still prefer emotions and hatred over scientific truth.
I know a few people like this in real life, with how angry these people are constantly I kind of doubt it's all that easy.
|
On October 15 2022 00:14 xM(Z wrote:
mother fuckers, you spammed 600 pages here, vilifying any not-vaccinated person accusing them of killing their peers through evil, blissful ignorance
Any chance you'd agree that this is slightly exaggerated?
|
I don't think it is. That's exactly what we did because that's exactly what they did.
You're dealing with people who never decided to think about or do any research at all on the biggest event of their lives. They'd rather seeth and hate then give a shit about their own lives or the lives of anyone around them.
At this point in the plague though they're dying off pretty fast and every day it proves that they were wrong.
|
This is stupid. Transmissibility is hard to study and the clinical trial system is designed to assess safety and efficacy for the patient because that’s what matters for regulatory approval. But unless we’re reconsidering the germ theory of disease, then we know the mechanism of transmission and barring compelling evidence to the contrary, the strong assumption should be that a vaccine that reduces infection also reduces transmission.
|
On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Show nested quote +Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations . your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally.
I think bolded nails it.
You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine.
On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision).
Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market.
Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys.
How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me.
Now if anyone of you thinks that Pfizer didnt research it to speed up vaccine to help people, you may find out that they did found plenty of time for negotiations and with not only ridiculous but actually accepted demands.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/19/secret-vaccine-contracts-with-governments-pfizer-took-hard-line-push-profit-report-says/
According to some leaked contracts, Pfizer was able in some countries get contracts which forbade accepting/giving donations of vaccines, was able to force countries to sign the contracts which waived any current or future immunity of their assets. Now we talking here things like for example White House, or nuclear weapon, or anything else really.
Now while leaked doesn't necessarily means actual I hardly think Washington Post would publish it if they weren't sure. So you guys may defend Pfizer with all your might, just be aware that it doesn't need it.
|
On October 15 2022 01:40 ChristianS wrote:
This is stupid. Transmissibility is hard to study and the clinical trial system is designed to assess safety and efficacy for the patient because that’s what matters for regulatory approval. But unless we’re reconsidering the germ theory of disease, then we know the mechanism of transmission and barring compelling evidence to the contrary, the strong assumption should be that a vaccine that reduces infection also reduces transmission.
Right, but if "reduced transmision" is the reason given for things like vaccine mandates and passports, you need to show that transmission is actually reduced.
How easily the Omnivron variant got out of South Africa despite every airline passenger being vaccinated was an eye opener that regulators were guessing and hoping rather than knowing.
|
On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine.
Your post about the Pfizer conversation is independent from some of the other things that other people were saying. There were multiple conversations happening simultaneously, and the issues pointed out with the video clip weren't because you were claiming that the Pfizer rep speaks for all pharma (you didn't say that, and I don't think anyone accused of you saying that). Also, I'd need more elaboration on what "unconditionally" is referring to; for example, I wouldn't support someone getting the covid vaccine if they spoke with their doctor and the doctor identified some sort of rare issue or allergy that would make getting the vaccine life-threatening. Those counterexamples are pretty extreme, but I think a lot of hypotheticals and thought experiments were played out in this thread.
Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Now if anyone of you thinks that Pfizer didnt research it to speed up vaccine to help people, you may find out that they did found plenty of time for negotiations and with not only ridiculous but actually accepted demands. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/19/secret-vaccine-contracts-with-governments-pfizer-took-hard-line-push-profit-report-says/According to some leaked contracts, Pfizer was able in some countries get contracts which forbade accepting/giving donations of vaccines, was able to force countries to sign the contracts which waived any current or future immunity of their assets. Now we talking here things like for example White House, or nuclear weapon, or anything else really. Now while leaked doesn't necessarily means actual I hardly think Washington Post would publish it if they weren't sure. So you guys may defend Pfizer with all your might, just be aware that it doesn't need it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pfizer cared about making sure they could make good money off the vaccines and tried to create contracts that were advantageous for them, but that's not the same thing as saying that the vaccine didn't do X or wasn't tested for Y or that there wasn't any data on Z (or that a benefit was necessarily "a lucky coincidence"). If anything, I think the argument could be made that the fact that different countries had to give in to certain negotiations for the greater good of their people means that Pfizer really did have a solid product.
|
On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread.
There is nothing lucky about it.
Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.
We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life.
Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak.
|
On October 15 2022 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread. There is nothing lucky about it. Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life. Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak.
Sorry in rush so just bolded because it cracked me up  .
I did, it turns out it wont. Earth will turn and the we will be able to see the sun.
|
On October 15 2022 02:54 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread. There is nothing lucky about it. Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life. Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak. Sorry in rush so just bolded because it cracked me up . I did, it turns out it wont. Earth will turn and the we will be able to see the sun.
And the term we use in English for that phenomenon is 'the sun coming up'.
|
On October 15 2022 02:54 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread. There is nothing lucky about it. Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life. Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak. Sorry in rush so just bolded because it cracked me up . I did, it turns out it wont. Earth will turn and the we will be able to see the sun.
Are you actually unfamiliar with the figure of speech?
|
On October 15 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 02:54 Razyda wrote:On October 15 2022 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread. There is nothing lucky about it. Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life. Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak. Sorry in rush so just bolded because it cracked me up . I did, it turns out it wont. Earth will turn and the we will be able to see the sun. Are you actually unfamiliar with the figure of speech?
Probably just wanting to be pedantic, because they can't actually refute what Gorsameth was saying.
|
On October 15 2022 03:03 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2022 02:54 Razyda wrote:On October 15 2022 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 15 2022 01:42 Razyda wrote:On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. I think bolded nails it. You guys didnt even notice that my original post was not against vaccine, or even all vaccine manufacturers, but strictly against Pfizer in your rush to ensure that no flaw can be found in vaccine. On October 14 2022 23:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions. 1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it. 2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision). Bolded: she literally states that they had no clue before vaccine hit the market. Rest is separate from quotes for all you guys. How people are okay, with the fact that one of the crucial aspects of medicine they were served, was just a lucky coincidence researched after billions of doses was administered is beyond me. Because the main point of a vaccine is and has always been to protect the vaccinated person and that decades of scientific research tells us that something that protects the infected also tends to help reduce further spread. There is nothing lucky about it. Have you done any research into whether the sun comes up tomorrow? Anything at all? Has anyone in the last decade checked if the sun will come up on 15-10-2022 (10-15 for you Americans)?
Yet I can very confidently say the sun will come up tomorrow and it won't be a lucky coincidence.We trust in science and the scientific community because we've been taught how scientific research works in school, if you haven't then I'm sorry for you and wished your school had done a better job of preparing you for life. Normal pharmaceutical trials are extremely time consuming affairs, the average time from phase 1 trials to approval is 10 years, 10 years. It takes so long because of how rigorous and thorough they are, and normally that's great, we went medicine to be as safe as it can possibly be. But, again and its weird that it feels like I need to keep reminding people of this, the world was in a little bit of a crisis with a global pandemic. We didn't want to wait 10 years for full clinical trials while 10k people die every single day from it (that's would be some 36 million dead btw) so all our governments told the pharmaceuticals to hurry up. I don't like Big Pharma anymore then the next guy but when your asking them to skip almost a decade worth of testing you can't blame them for wanting concessions and assurances to cover their asses if anything bad gets missed because we're asking them to skip nearly a decades worth of testing in order to fight a global pandemic outbreak. Sorry in rush so just bolded because it cracked me up . I did, it turns out it wont. Earth will turn and the we will be able to see the sun. Are you actually unfamiliar with the figure of speech? Probably just wanting to be pedantic, because they can't actually refute what Gorsameth was saying.
That would speak to the good faith vs. bad faith point mentioned earlier, but I figured the benefit of the doubt wouldn't hurt, as sometimes certain phrases don't translate well. The point obviously still needs to be addressed though, outside of semantics misunderstandings/games.
|
On October 15 2022 01:48 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 01:40 ChristianS wrote:
This is stupid. Transmissibility is hard to study and the clinical trial system is designed to assess safety and efficacy for the patient because that’s what matters for regulatory approval. But unless we’re reconsidering the germ theory of disease, then we know the mechanism of transmission and barring compelling evidence to the contrary, the strong assumption should be that a vaccine that reduces infection also reduces transmission. Right, but if "reduced transmision" is the reason given for things like vaccine mandates and passports, you need to show that transmission is actually reduced. How easily the Omnivron variant got out of South Africa despite every airline passenger being vaccinated was an eye opener that regulators were guessing and hoping rather than knowing.
“Need to show”? Says who? I’m not familiar with the methodology for assessing impact on transmissibility, but I am pretty familiar with the methodology for assessing safety and efficacy, which is much easier to study. And you know what? Assessing safety and efficacy is still TREMENDOUSLY difficult and expensive. Literal billions of dollars *per drug* are spent on designing experimental protocols, recruiting patients, developing assays, modeling pharmacokinetics, assessing drug tolerance from lots of different angles, and mistakes *still* end up in “If you or a loved one took Unobtainumab between 2015 and 2019…” commercials on late night TV.
Regulators are always going to have to operate from imperfect information, and transmission is never going to have the quality of validated data that safety and efficacy do. With strong theoretical reason to believe preventing infection also prevents transmission, and strong data showing vaccines do, in fact, prevent infection, policy should absolutely operate from the assumption that vaccines reduce transmission unless compelling data indicates otherwise.
|
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again?
|
On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again?
It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax.
Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done.
|
On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?"
I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc.
I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad.
|
On October 15 2022 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 00:14 xM(Z wrote:
mother fuckers, you spammed 600 pages here, vilifying any not-vaccinated person accusing them of killing their peers through evil, blissful ignorance Any chance you'd agree that this is slightly exaggerated?
yes, but warranted.
i will not reply to people misrepresenting my argument or to ones throwing baseless accusations around.
the thing is, there is a vast amount of scientific data on viruses(corvidae/coronaviridae) for medics to know, prior to any kind of study/tests, that there will be transmission even if/when vaccinated, but the whole idea was ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
