-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DeepBreath87
Banned
Not to mention that restrictions were meant to spare hospitals from overcrowding and the system from collapsing. Now for some reason it’s all about decreasing cases to zero. The goal post moving has come from all sizes. The consistent position should always have been to minimizing the impact on society broadly while still allowing people to make their own choices.
This idea the state is their to force you to take care of yourself is asinine. People bring up seatbelt laws. Seat belt laws are dumb as fuck. If you’re too stupid to wear your seatbelt, you’re not going to let some bullshit, almost unenforceable law stop you from wearing one. Seat belt laws are like cigarette taxes. They’re a way for the state to generate revenue under the guise of “safety”. I’m 100% for people to be allowed to be idiots. You want to drive without your seatbelt? Go for it. You better hope you don’t have an accident. You want to get fat as fuck? It’s your body to ruin.
Before the vaccines, the argument could be made that effectively the risk to the public from individual choices was great enough to restrict those choices. Fortunately for everyone, the vaccines are so effective that we can dispense with that argument.
Last edited:
vpance
Member
IVM is one of the safest therapeutics that’s ever been made by mankind. There’s no excuse not to use it, for which it has been successfully in a few countries. It being banned and vilified tells me all I need to know about this situation. I thought we wanted to save granpa?
One of the earliest known cases for its efficacy was in a LTC facility in Toronto, inadvertently from the treatment of a scabies outbreak. All of staff came down with covid, and none of the patients who were in their 80s and very comorbid with cancer and other diseases. This was in Feb 2020, and IVM is still being hemmed and hawed over.
I personally know of a few cases where it sure could’ve helped, but guess what the patients ended up dying on ventilators because there was and still is no official early treatment protocol given.
Still doesn’t make sense to give it to kids since we have no long term data on either. You simply don't want to add another variable to the equation, full stop. Not when this disease is even less deadly than the flu for that demographic.
Last edited:
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Seven children are hospitalized in ICU in Mississippi
Seven children have been hospitalized in intensive care unit across Mississippi where public health officials are warning that the Delta variant is fueling a surge in COVID cases statewide.
Lots more in the article beyond the arresting headline. Good luck to the unvaccinated.
Raven117
Member
Considering this is a new type of vaccine, you have absolutely no idea about whether there are long terms effects (and neither does the science).There's a lot of concern trolling about "long term effects" unrelated to short term effects, but that's not really a thing with vaccines. There's no way for a vaccine to cause a problem in the long term that doesn't exist in the short term. How would that even happen? I mean antibody reactivity could be a lasting effect, but that would also show up in the short term, it wouldn't suddenly appear later on.
I thinkFunkMiller is right, it's sort of a last thing that vaccine skeptics can cling to, after being proven wrong about the vaccine's danger's and efficacy. "Oh yeah? Well maybe they'll BECOME dangerous later!"
I’m not an anti-vaxxer, got mine awhile back, but there is nothing wrong about being somewhat skittish about a new vaccine is understandable.
Imo, the “free market” will dictate when those people get a vaccine. (Ie, if they see enough people get sick and pass, they will take the vaccine…. If they don’t see enough, then they won’t).
as far as I’m concerned, it’s their choice. Doesn’t effect me in the slightest. They want to roll the dice, let them. All the government and citizens should do is demonstrate that the risk is very low with the vaccine and hope they come around.
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Banned
Well J&J, AstraZeneca, and Novavax vaccines aren't "new types of vaccines," first of all.
But regardless of the fact that mRNA is new technology, what I said still applies: A vaccine can't do anything to you when it isn't in your system, and it's only in your system for a short time.
mRNA vaccines ARE still vaccines, just with a different form of delivery. They're still a benign stand-in for the virus that allows your natural immune system to train itself on something safe, and is then cleared from your system. It's not some totally alien concept different from traditionally delivered vaccines where there's a legit concern of long term effects.
You're kind of clinging to something that seems physically impossible. Like a remote or sleeper cell activation of something after it's gone. It doesn't really make sense, and you have zero reason to think it's a real risk.
I agree to an extent, but there's a difference between not wanting to be first in line because you want to see the effects on the population at large (reasonable) and being afraid it has a microchip to read your thoughts or that it's planting seeds to be activated a year down the road. This particular concern is just a nonsense fear, it's not something that can happen in real life.
12Goblins
Lil’ Gobbie
yo this is legit
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It's also not the view of anyone in this thread or that of most people who are hesitant about the vaccines, I believe.
SF Kosmo
Banned
I'm sorry but the chorus of "long terms side effects" concerns are no more reasonable. It's all science fiction. Vaccines don't work that way.
Last edited:
Raven117
Member
Please dude, you know damn well I was talking about Pfizer/Moderna, first of all.
You aren't a scientist (and the science isn't asserting what you are claiming with certainty either https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf?origin=ppub
Funny enough, your type of folks were all "wait two weeks"...we don't know how bad Covid can get...yada yada....when all the evidence pointed one way (that it really wasn't all that bad for most people....but now with vaccines, everything is iron-clad.
Note, I'm taking issue with how you are saying it, not your ultimate point. We both agree generally (ie. the risk of taking the vaccine is very low). You sound more like propaganda rather than actually discussing this. You need to go over to reddit and preach this to people who are actually against the vaccine.
As to the second part, of course. There is no room for that nonsense.
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Banned
I think Ivermectin is worth studying but the data so far is not amazing. The most encouraging data is anecdotal. A scentific double-blind study found it slightly lowered the rate of hospitalization but that those who were hospitalized faced accelerated symptoms and needed to be put on ventilation sooner.
At best it'll be a cheap alternative to remdesivir. It's not a miracle cure. You're much better off just getting vaccinated.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, mRNA and viral vector solutions don't work like traditional vaccines, hence the reticence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raven117
Member
Right, and "science" has never been wrong about the long term safety of products. Ever.
(Again, not saying to be anti-vaxxer, but some reticence is understandable....I'm happy I got it, but others are free to make other choices....).
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
We saw the redefining (quite literally on dictionary and medical sites) of what "vaccine" means in this past year and are now expected to associate the centuries long history of traditional vaccines, their achievements, and safety profiles with these new technologies without batting an eye. I sincerely hope they turn out to be *even better* than traditional vaccines and turn into a miracle technology that cures all manners of disease that we haven't previously been able to eradicate, but I do believe the verdict is very much still not in.
Raven117
Member
I hope this too. Lots of the science is absolutely encouraging that they will be. This is great news.
SF Kosmo
Banned
They differ in how they're made and, in the former case, how they're delivered, but again these things don't really apply to the "long term" concern, now do they?
Taxexemption
Member
I'm just not getting the vaccine. I don't trust the people that insist I get it, and no argument will change my mind. If my job requires it I'll sue, if they win the lawsuit I'll quit. There is literally nothing you could do to convince me to get the vaccine, and there are a significant number of people that feel this way.
If you made me such a criminal that the rest of my life was relegated to being a beggar I still wouldn't do it.
If you made me such a criminal that the rest of my life was relegated to being a beggar I still wouldn't do it.
SF Kosmo
Banned
This is an odd bit of semantics.
Grab a dictionary that's 5 or more years old from your library and look up "automobile." It'll probably say a four wheeled vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. But when electric cars came out, you didn't see anybody trying to claim they weren't cars/autos, because they're very much doing the same exact thing, just with different technology.
The same logic applies here. The new vaccines are still very much vaccines. They are still a harmless stand-in that allows your body to recognize and create antibodies for a harmful disease. It's still the same exact concept.
I think it's the very fact that people want you to take it that is the literal one and only reason you don't. Resentment of the media breeds opposite-think.
Last edited:
Taxexemption
Member
It's the people that want me to get it. They aren't random, they are elitist weirdos who I believe to be dishonest, and I don't believe they have any regard for humanity
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Hopefully there is no long term concern. I truly do not want to see anything bad happen to anyone. Widespread negative side effects of this vaccination program would cause a severe blow to societal cohesion, which is already very fragile and divided.
A traditional vaccine typically contains a tiny amount of an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The mRNA and viral vector vaccines, rather than deliver a finite amount of the harmful substance that is intended to trigger an immune reaction, instead instruct your own cells to produce it. That's how they work. They are engineered so that this happens only in the local area where the injection is received, so that the cells don't produce the substance indefinitely, and so that the harmful substance does not break free and flow throughout the body. Do they work as engineered 100% of the time? I'm not sure we can truly know at this stage.
Either way, I think a lot of people who are skeptical of them will be more comfortable with the more traditional Novavax that is on the way and injects spike proteins that are produced outside of the body.
TheDreadBaron
Member
It seems like you don't know how the mRNA vaccines are different, you're saying their purpose is the same to train the immune system in a way that's harmless, that's true but the whole point is that they do that in a novel way, and it's in a way that requires their engineering of this technology to work correctly. It's not as simple as your built in immune properties doing their thing, it's actually programming your cells directly, that's not the same.
SF Kosmo
Banned
No, I understand, but you're a little off here. It's provoking your cells but not programming them. The mRNA particles are finite, they get used up, and then it's gone from your system. They don't replicate and can't continue to produce spike proteins without additional doses.
So for the purposes of "long term" effects, they're safe in the long term for the same basic and obvious reason as traditional vaccines; they don't actually stay in your system.
TheDreadBaron
Member
Now who's getting into semantics?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
That's certainly how they are engineered and we can only hope they are working exactly as intended 100% of the time. Either way, it's "provoking" your own cells to produce what is viewed as a foreign invader by your immune system, so you had better damn hope this effect is finite and localized. Still, it shouldn't be hard to see why people would be more comfortable with injecting a tiny amount of a neutralized or weaken foreign harmful substance (traditional vaccine) versus having your own body make it.
SF Kosmo
Banned
I am a big believer in Novavax, and I do think it's the best vaccine, in terms of both efficacy and low appearance of side effects. I participated in a Novavax trial last winter, so it's the one I personally chose to take as well. So I get that, and if you want to wait for Novavax that's a valid choice.
But choosing "no vaccine at all" is some dodgy calculus in my opinion. And mRNA vaccines are able to target diseases that traditional vaccines can't, like HIV, Herpes, and some forms of cancer. I will happily take those.
Last edited:
TheDreadBaron
Member
Me too, when they're properly tested
The Netherlands, don’t be like us 
bigsnack
Member
For those that don't want the vaccine, have you read up on how the mRNA vaccines work? That is not a condescending question (words can be taken the wrong way when typed / read), it's genuine. I myself read nothing more than a few short articles, as well as watched a YT video or two. Regardless, I decided to take the vaccine. If you are hesitant about these vaccines, I'm sure that nearly every shred of detail and information is available to you to read up on, so that you be sure that your decision is well informed. It's been mentioned before, but I personally don't think that resisting the vaccine simply because the powers that be are urging you to get it. I don't have any investment in the discussion really, just thinking out loud.
SF Kosmo
Banned
Like three phases of clinical trials and a hundred million doses in the wild? What makes it proper?
They didn't short the testing for Covid vaccines. The testing went a bit faster than usual because Covid is stupid infectious and spreading like crazy so it was much quicker to get to the level of data required to be considered statistically effective, and because they manufactured the vaccines before they were approved. But they got just as much if not more testing than any other vaccine.
Last edited:
TheDreadBaron
Member
Thalidomide says hi. Polio vaccine says hi. No way that could happen again right? How many good intentions leading to unintended consequences is it going to take for you to have any skepticism about brand new chemicals injected straight into your blood?
FunkMiller
Banned
TheDreadBaron
Member
Great, so where's the data following up on all those vaccinations?
FunkMiller
Banned
What data are you asking for? The data that suggests the vaccine is safe? They're called human beings, walking around being fine.
Or do you mean the data about serious side effects and deaths? You may have noticed there's not much of that at all... considering the amount of people jabbed.
This should lead you to a fairly obvious conclusion, but I rather doubt it will.
TheDreadBaron
Member
I'm referring to a a comprehensive, systematic follow up that seeks to collect data what outcomes people experience from every different vaccine, are you aware of such a thing existing? Wouldn't you need something like that to find out what the health effects of the vaccine are on a large scale? There are self reported adverse events, but surely that's not the full picture when people have all been told it's safe and it can't hurt you.
I mean you just showed that a lot people have been vaccinated, and they're not dropping in the streets so that proves no one will ever get cancer, infertility, autoimmune diseases because according to you long term effects are impossible?
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Banned
Millions upon millions of people are walking around with absolutely no side effects from the covid vaccine, and still you deny that there's data staring you right in the face that's undeniable, unavoidable, and unable to be controlled. There is no information anywhere from verified sources that claims in any way, shape or form that anyone other than a very, very tiny minority of people are being affected by serious side effects.
Unless of course you're claiming that information about serious side effects and deaths in many more people is being suppressed...
Last edited:
TheDreadBaron
Member
I addressed the long term effects in an edit, I don't know what's so hard to understand about it
FunkMiller
Banned
Ah, so we're back to the 'long term side effects', because that's where you need to escape when logic and bare-faced reality is employed against your argument. Of course, you have zero proof that these long term side effects do, or ever will exist.
Meanwhile, you have concrete proof right in front of you that the vaccines are safe right now. And that the chances of long term side effects stemming from a vaccine that creates very very few serious short term side effects are incredibly small. You only need to look at other vaccines for proof of that.
And how long do you cling to your 'long term side effects' argument against vaccine usage? The first people in the UK received their first vaccine in December of last year. Is six months enough for you? Twelve? Five years? Ten? How long will you hold onto the only mantra you have left against vaccination? One that has zero proof or precedent to back it up?
TheDreadBaron
Member
And here you are again conflating mRNA vaccine technology with the good old vaccine technology we know works safely. Nice try. I'm not saying there will be long term effects and i hope there isn't, but the point is no one can know, and anyone claiming to know there WON'T be is talking out of their ass.
And a good way to find out what those effects could and might be would be to be taking the idea seriously and taking following up with everyone getting the vaccine, since they were rushed so quickly this is essentially a beta test but they're not even collecting proper data, just waiting to see if problems show up and the connections eventually get made.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Banned
So you acknowledge that the risk of serious side effects short term is incredibly small, and that you have no proof or indication anywhere that there will be long term side effects, and that you are just pretty much going with your gut instinct?
TheDreadBaron
Member
Yeah absolutely, I'm not at risk from dying from covid, don't need a vaccine, am not claiming the vaccines will definitely harm you, just that we don't have proof they won't. I'm surprised I have to keep bringing up past medical blunders bathed in the best of intentions, sometimes they get it wrong. I'm of the wait and see approach, cuz covid isn't that scary to me. Is there room for someone like me in your world?
FunkMiller
Banned
Excellent... so we've finally hit the crux of the matter.
You, TheDreadBaron, random dude on NeoGaf with absolutely zero expertise or training in the fields of medicine, epidemiology, or biology know better than the array of scientists and experts that have tested the vaccines thoroughly, and are asking you to take it to keep other vulnerable people safe - the ones who are very much at risk - and to help prevent the continuous spread of the covid virus among the population.
Why yes, there is room in this world for people like you.
Unfortunately.
TheDreadBaron
Member
Dude, you're gonna get so many hi fives for this post.
This has already been addressed, without even calling your existence unfortunate!
At risk people that wanted to get vaccinated got vaccinated so they're protected as thoroughly as medical science can provide. Immunocompromised people protect themselves by living in a bubble, i'm not interested in expanding that bubble indefinitely to include all public spaces. Anyone that wants the vaccine can get it, and it's a zillion percent effective so isn't it just unvaccinated people at risk at this point? The whole you're killing grandma argument doesn't make sense anymore, I'm as protected as anyone else from my natural immunity.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
And this is how vaccinating children right down to infants will be justified even though they are at virtually no risk to the virus itself. The goal of vaccination always needs to be first and foremost about protecting the person receiving the vaccination.
SF Kosmo
Banned
I mean no, obviously not. That was 60 years ago and the standards for testing were completely different. Thalidomide was straight up not tested on pregnant women at all and was during an era when drugs for pregnant women were not controlled at all. The polio vaccine contaminations were the result of manufacturing errors resulting from completely obsolete technologies and saftety protocols that would never fly today.
They're not brand new anymore they're in the wild and we have an extremely good understanding of their effects.
I understand skepticism about unknowns, but not unwillingness to accept the results.
Last edited:
Raven117
Member
They can take the vaccine.
I know that its a very difficult thing to fathom for folks like you, but there is a thing called personal responsibility. If you want to live risk free from Covid (pretty much), take the vaccine. If you want to take the risk, don't take the vaccine.
Its that simple. I do my best not tell people how to live their life, maybe you should as well.
TheDreadBaron
Member
Yeah, they made mistakes that we tried to correct. But the point is mistakes will always continue to be made no matter how perfect you think the system is. So your unshakable faith in what the "experts" are saying right now today is impressive, considering experts have been wrong countless times resulting in real harm to people. In the VAERS system there are just as many permanent disabilities reported as deaths. Most people never think about what that takes away from you until you have some experience of it, it can often lead to suicide as well. Everyone is happy to say it's safe just take it but you're not going to take responsibility for whatever (hopefully) tiny percentage of people's lives are lost or ruined as a result. This is just an ends justify the means argument, that's pretty rocky territory.
FunkMiller
Banned
I’m not telling you to take a vaccine to help lower the risk for the vulnerable… the scientists, epidemiologists and other experts in diseases are. The people who know better than you or me. They’re asking you to take the vaccine.
Your argument boils down to “fuck what they think, and anyone at risk. I’m not risking myself, no matter how small it is.”
Last edited: