Well it has started

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by chickenpox2, Nov 4, 2020.

  1. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Vaccines are not safe and effective. In the US, we have what is colloquially referred to as a "Vaccine Court" which was established precisely because it was recognized that vaccines are inherently dangerous, and as such, certain protections for the production companies needed to be instituted while still offering a means of restitution for injury from vaccines.

    While there are some vaccines with a proven track record, this does not apply, to, for example, COVID-19. Which among other things, has not actually recieved FDA approval, but rather is being used onder "Emergency Use Authorization." Part of the reason for this is that there have not been sufficient studies due to the rushed nature of the compound.

    VEARS, a voluntary reporting system, has reported over 11k deaths within 3 days of those taking COVID Vax (I'm not sure if a given company is worse or not on this point, as I haven't yet seen that data), especially in younger subjects. In the UK, they have reported over 18k deaths due to adverse reactions, as well as over a million injuries, including some potentailly permanent disabilities. Overall, adverse reactions to the new shot have been stronger in this last 8+ or so months than normal.

    Potential long term effects are unknown.

    Certainly, this in and of itself does not mean the medication should not remain available for those that wish to have it. However, each individual should be able to make up their own mind as to what they feel is proper for themselves, keeping in mind the dangers of the disease in question and how much it would impact their lives.

    Certainly, there's some misinformation about the vaccines purchased by governments the world over... but one of those is that it is perfecly "safe" to take. Or that it would be necessary to take a vaccine if one has obtained a natural immunity due ot prior exposure and recovery from the disease.

    There are too many diseases in existence that have no vaccination for this to have a significant impact on interactions with immuno-compromised individuals. Further more, it is improper to put responsibility on a person for infecting an immuno-compromised individual unless they have done so with intent (for which there are generally already laws on the subject). Someone looking after or doing care-taking for such a person may wish to consider it as an additional reason to get a vaccine... but the reality is that there are plenty of diseases around there... (including baterial infections etc.)

    Perhaps even more importantly in the case of the CCPVirus (COVID), Fauci and others pushing for vaccination mandates have expressed that the Vaccines do NOT prevent transmission of the virus in question. Or even prevent one from getting sick, as Linsey Graham and the fleeing Democrats from Texas have shown.

    I'm not aware of any disease which has been eradicated from the globe. That said, those with a proven track record get taken... and those that don't, whether for "superfluous" reasons or otherwise, generally only take on the risk for themselves. Though fortunately vaccines are not the only method of dealing with most diseases.

    I'm mostly focused on 1.

    When a person (child or otherwise) are unable to communicate, in shock, etc. sure, there are pre-standing laws regarding treating people in that instance, as I understand it.

    I'm glad we agree on that.

    But the thing about rights is that they take precedence if there's no mitigation. If you're going to force anyone to take a medication against express wishes, you need to justify it for each person individually, not issue broad mandates. That means it can't be an experimental medication. It needs to be proven to be effective. It cannot do more harm than it is intended to heal. It needs to be proven that the subject will otherwise be an immediate danger to themselves or others. And it needs to be targeted only at the specific problem that is causing that immediate threat.

    A perfectly healthy person, whether a child or an adult... should never have any medication (or any medical proceedure) forced on them (not even by their parents in my view). Nor for them to be extorted to take it by threatening their job(s), ability to access public educational systems; ability to travel within a nation. etc.

    As far as dystopia... we're much closer to that than you think.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's important to note that we already mandate many things to protect personal safety - even in cases where it's ONLY the individual being protected - unlike COVID, which impacts other people.

    For example, construction companies are required to provide PPE where applicable as well as ENFORCE the use of it - to the point where people can be fired if they do not comply. This is not normally seen as controversial.

    And ultimately, very few people actually want to forcefully inject people - but what many do want, and in my opinion quite reasonably, is to mitigate the impact on the rest of society for those who do get vaccinated such as businesses restricting access, travel restrictions, and other things.

    The hypothetical scenario where people are being forcefully vaccinated or having other medical procedures done to them isn't impossible, but there's a long way between the NFL requiring players to have vaccines or be always masked to secret government agents jabbing you in the middle of the night.

    Yes, we should have freedom to decide, but we shouldn't be free to impose the consequences of our freedom on others.

    This is the same reason why smoking bans in certain public places makes sense, because your choice to smoke affects others, not just yourself.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The VAERS system is often cited by anti-vaxxers, but unfortunately it's not reliable as data regarding vaccine safety since it is only a voluntary database of alleged incidents occurring near a vaccine, and not any sort of controlled study nor are any of the incidents verified by anyone.

    It's important to note that just because a death after vaccine is reported to VAERS, it doesn't mean it was caused by the vaccine in question.

    Indeed, if you look at studies about that have looked at deaths following vaccines reported to VAERS, the conclusion is that the deaths follow the normal death pattern and causes of death, and doesn't indicate any vaccine concerns.


    Results. VAERS received 2149 death reports, most (n = 1469 [68.4%]) in children. Median age was 0.5 years (range, 0–100 years); males accounted for 1226 (57%) reports. The total annual number of death reports generally decreased during the latter part of the study period. Most common causes of death among 1244 child reports with available death certificates/autopsy reports included sudden infant death syndrome (n = 544 [44%]), asphyxia (n = 74 [6.0%]), septicemia (n = 61 [4.9%]), and pneumonia (n = 57 [4.6%]). Among 526 adult reports, most common causes of death included diseases of the circulatory (n = 247 [46.9%]) and respiratory systems (n = 77 [14.6%]), certain infections and parasitic diseases (n = 62 [11.8%]), and malignant neoplasms (n = 20 [3.8%]). For child death reports, 79.4% received >1 vaccine on the same day. Inactivated influenza vaccine given alone was most commonly associated with death reports in adults (51.4%).

    Conclusions. No concerning pattern was noted among death reports submitted to VAERS during 1997–2013. The main causes of death were consistent with the most common causes of death in the US population.​

    Should potential vaccine deaths be investigated and studied? Yes, and so far, there's not a single confirmed death that can be attributed to the COVID vaccine at all, so when articles/posts are written talking about the "vaccine death rate" citing VAERS, it is pretty misleading and I categorize it firmly in the "misinformation" pile. Unfortunately, many people don't really understand that VAERS is not actually reliable data given its nature.

    In general, non-live vaccines have not been shown to have long-term side effects. It's possible that the COVID-19 vaccines are different, but there's no precedent for this concern among the group of vaccines that do not contain live virus.

    There's currently no empirical studies or statistical evidence showing that the vaccines aren't generally safe. And unfortunately, that's as "safe" as we can get, barring time.

    A Study from Feb showed that antibodies lasting at least 8 months in a majority of individuals, which is pretty good, so I would generally agree that if you already got COVID, getting the vaccine is much less critical. Still, I don't disagree with the recommendation as studies also show that the protection from the vaccine is significantly more effective than the natural immunity response.


    "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released a study confirming the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines versus natural immunity, including immunity gained from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Researchers found that, among hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021, those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. CDC says the research suggests that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

    A second CDC study, published concurrently, shows the extent to which vaccines prevented COVID-19-related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups."
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2021
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The funny thing about this system is that I think it actually proves the opposite: vaccines are generally quite safe and effective.


    First, let's note that there are always potential issues, sometimes people are allergic to food that's considered safe to eat. Other stuff like certain essential oils can hurt babies, or dogs. Everything has potential side effects. Obviously just because a few people are allergic to X, doesn't mean we immediately declare it dangerous.

    So before you look below, think about what amount of claims through this court system should be cause for concern.

    How many cases do you expect we have per year? Is it 100? 1000? 1000000?

    This might be not be easy to answer if you don't know how many doses of vaccines are given out, so we could also do %s instead.

    Is it 0.1% of vaccine doses? Is it 1%? Or 10%?


    Ok, onto the data!

    So between 2006 and 2019, there were 4 BILLION vaccine doses given.

    How many claims through this vaccine court have been claimed during that time? 8395.

    That's 0.00020512% of all shots given if we assume every claim was valid. In truth, just over 70% were compensated, bringing the total compensated case percentage to
    an infinitesimal 0.0001454032%.

    Now, of course, not EVERYONE seeks compensation even if they could get it, but even if we 10x or 100x these numbers, it's still less than a 10th of a percent. We could reasonably assume though, that most very serious effects, including potential death, is litigated.

    So if you said 0.1% was where you'd start having concerns, then we'd need to have a thousand times more people requesting compensation through this system before we got to that threshold.

    Compared to the number of issues reported by VAERS, the actual number of people claiming any sort of compensation is vanishingly small.

    Now, if vaccines were actually so unsafe and causes so many problems, I think it's reasonable that we'd expect more than a few hundred cases per year through the vaccine court compared to the hundreds of millions of doses we give each year.

    Source: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2021
  5. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    People often cite that vaccines take 10-15 years to develop, and claim that these vaccines were developed in 6 months.

    And I understand why that sounds concerning to many.

    But the question is: where does this concern lead you?

    Do you immediately draw the conclusion then that the vaccines aren't safe?

    Or do you try and understand why it could be so fast, and what that actually means?


    For me, in order to think about this concern, we need to know HOW vaccines are normally developed, and what the difference with these COVID vaccines are.


    First, in a typical 10-15 year cycle of a vaccine, the first 2-5 years is actually target selection/discovery.

    What this means is that the companies are in a "pre-development" stage of deciding what to target. There is a lot to go into here as to what this entails, but in this stage, they aren't really working on the vaccine, nor are they working on a single disease or issue - there could be hundreds of candidates at this stage.

    This is the phase where they are trying to figure out which ones are viable to make money off of - in the case of COVID-19, no such phase was necessary - they knew the target, and the government funding guaranteed it'd make money, so off they went, skipping this step entirely.


    Next is formulation and actually trying to make a vaccine, once targets have been selected. In this stage, there are still dozens of candidates, and they are looking at various types of vaccines (such as mRNA) and whether it would be viable for their short-listed candidates. This is typically a couple of years, mostly because formulations and delivery vectors are usually researched concurrently with development or with other vaccines - for example, mRNA vaccine wasn't developed specifically for COVID-19, and has been in development since Obama.

    So up to this stage it's important to note that even though something can be "in development" for as much as 9 years, they are working on a lot of things at the same time. In many cases, the amount of actual work on a particular vaccine being might not be extensive, depending on how much research and development was actually necessary.


    Normally, one company may try multiple different approaches over many years before deciding which one to go with, but in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, different companies picked their own area of expertise and directly went after one formulation, reducing the time spent here, and then concurrently developed them. What this means is that rather than one company trying a bunch of things, multiple companies were doing it at the same time. There was a lot of data and information sharing (for example, the genome was sequenced and shared in Jan 2020, mere weeks after the Wuhan outbreak was reported) between agencies and companies - as mandated by the government funding - which normally does not occur in private vaccine development.

    So instead of a new vaccine being developed by ONE company, but here, we had multiple, with immediate funding. And so if you added up ALL the time EVERY company spent in this phase, it becomes more like a normal schedule.

    Also, you probably didn't about the companies that didn't end up producing a vaccine, by the way - they spent time too! For example, a German vaccine failed a Phase I trial with just 47% efficacy. The time these guys spent should also be counted if we are trying to compare the COVID-19 vaccines to a normal vaccine development schedule.

    In particular, the mRNA platform has been in research for about a decade and is likely to accelerate future vaccine development, but that's a different subject.


    Next is phased trials - this is where the COVID-19 vaccine really cut things short by doing all the phases simultaneously. This was risky... not for the end result, but for people in the later phases.

    One of the the reasons you phase trials is so that you limit exposure in the early stages before expanding the trials to more vulnerable people. Here, after internal animal testing, all the Human phases happened more or less at the same time, this means that Phase III trials participants, who normally have less risk because it's already passed Phase I and Phase II, don't have that safety net.

    But once all Phases are completed, the end result is functionally the same.

    Another reason why Phases usually take so long as that they need study candidates. For many issues, the valid candidates are few and far between. Not so in a global pandemic - they had more candidates than they knew what to do with!

    The thing that ultimately remains is mostly long-term side effects (i.e. what happens in 10-20 years), which tend to be rare and also hard to quantify - and the risk of those is largely the same as any other vaccine.

    You can also be that as soon as the pandemic news broke, that many of these companies already assigned people to start looking into it, which also means that rather than it starting when Operation Warp Speed started, the work had already begun near the start of the pandemic.


    And then, review: reviews of the studies were accelerated. Does that mean they didn't do their job? Well, this is hard to tell, but most likely they pushed this to the top of the pile and focused more resources on it than usual. At the same time, this was being reviewed globally by many agencies at the same time, whereas normal vaccines often take a more phased approach, acquiring approval in certain markets first before trying for others. This combo approach meant much more eyes looked at the same data at the same time, increasing the chance that somebody caught something instead of them following the recommendations of a previous approval agency.


    Lastly, production: normally, companies aren't producing the vaccines immediately. But in this case, they were pre-built facilitates designed to pump out these vaccines as soon as possible as soon as they thought it worked.


    In short, it was faster because:
    • the target was known, skipping discovery phase
    • global information sharing, including a fully sequenced genome
    • different companies concurrently developed different vaccines using different approaches
      • not all succeeded, which, if it was a single company, it'd add time, but one company failing didn't stop anyone else in this case
    • plenty of study candidates means no delay in Phased trials and they could be done concurrently
    • accelerated review process (FDA and similar agencies pushed it to the front of their priorities' list)
    Is there increased risk with an accelerated schedule? Of course there is, but it's also not as scary as some people try to make it sound when they compare the normal cycle time to the COVID-19 vaccines.

    The question is, when a person hears "6 months to develop this vaccine compared to the normal 10-15 years," do they immediately jump to "it must be unsafe" or did they apply their critical thinking and information gathering skills to validate the concern? Unfortunately, it seems to me it's mostly the former, rather than the latter - because otherwise, "they skipped testing" and "no one reviewed the trials" comments wouldn't persist.

    (Aside: @Ohmin, notice how, when you cite information/evidence/databases that are publicly accessible and mentioned specific concepts that have corresponding studies, I did the legwork and responded directly to these things with related data and information.)
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2021
  6. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    I see sok has answered a lot of the points about the safety of covid vaccines. The truth is that there is an amazing amount of covid vaccines being applied (big % of the population in a lot of countries) and if even a small percentage of cases had problems, the amount of affected people would be overwhelming. Also, even if in the USA it was not approved by traditional means, they were in a lot of countries.
    About diseases being eradicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases
    you see even if they are some not globally eradicated they are for a big portion of the globe. This situation happens a lot locally with cattle too, where some areas stop requiring certain vaccines.

    Also, Covid vaccines do prevent the transmission of the virus, just not 100%, and that's why additional measures are implemented, but vaccinated people are less likely to infect others.
    And about non vaccinated people affecting others, well, furthering the mutation of a virus affects others, increased risk of infection affects others, occupying ICU beds when it could be avoided affects others too (in extreme situations). And for the immunocompromised people, I was thinking of people not getting mandatory vaccination that I guess it's a crime already. In that case it's not done with intent but is analogous to driving drunk.
  7. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Now I'm kinda scared that anti vaxxers will bring back erradicated diseases by not vaccinating their babies
  8. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    there is a L&O: SUV episode about it I think
  9. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    And what did they find out?
  10. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

  11. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Anti vaxer will make sure that happens you do realise that because of anti vaxxers the pandemic would extend from 2 years to maybe 4-5 years?

    So you not hurting yourself by not vaxinating you basically Firking us (and the rest of the world) by completing derailing the economy from your indecision and dragging of you feet
  12. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    More referring to skipping/halting of animal trials than the time itself. As well as the lack of long-term studies.

    Which, coincidentally, never got past animal trials (because the animals kept dying). Of course, this in itself does not preclude a breakthrough.

    There is no evidence that the vaccine provides adequate protection to others, even if it provides adequate protection to the vaccinated. Indeed, it has been discussed by the very experts pushing a vaccine mandate that it does not prevent transmission, particularly of variants.

    Construction (hardhats for example, gloves, boots, etc.) is a known hazardous zone. I've worked construction, so I know what you're talking about. Likewise for, for example, driving a vehicle, there are mandates that one wear a seatbelt, have an airbag, and/or not be inebriated at the time. This is due to the inherent hazards involved (though even here, airbags are actually sometimes controversial due to the question of effectiveness).

    However, when there is no evidence of a potential deadly pathogen, there should be no requirement to wear PPE. Only when there is a known pathogen should PPE be required, and that PPE requirement should be a proven preventative or mitigator. To date, there has been no controlled study showing general masks as being effective against either Influenza or Corona viruses. Indeed, multiple studies have shown them not to be effective (and masks to be a gather place for other pathogens in the process).

    Studies concerning the 1918 Spanish Flu for example, conducted under the NIH showed that the wide-spread mask use encouraged at the time had no measurable effect in preventing disease, in indeed caused more harm than good. A test during the more Swine Flu under Obama also looked into mask use, and found that while the N95 type resperators had an impact (not full prevention but enough to justify it's use in certain circumstances except that prolonged use resulted in oxygen deprivation) surgical masks had no meaningful impact in preventing hospital workers from contracting the disease.

    The issue of masks being a gathering place for pathogens is still very much verified, with no substantive evidence that masks prevent spread of the Wuhan Virus or any other corona virus.

    It's one of the reasons why the US has not adopted wide-spread mask use during flu seasons.

    I've seen studies which disagree, another factor being also which types of antibodies are being measured. Some are less prevalent from a vaccine than with natural exposure for example. There's also the question of reliability against variants. So far, data shows that natural immunity is stronger against variants than vaccination.

    The point being though, so long as it remains a "recommendation" I don't have a problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with mandating, or recommending others mandate it, even for those which have already had a natural immunity gained from exposure.

    Which sounds like authoritarian BS to me. Particularly since many push for businesses to include grocery stores and other food outlets, as well as determine employment eligebility for any current or future job. Segregating society based on whether or not they have taken a specific medication IS a dystopian society. While a quarantine of a provably infected individual may sometimes be warranted (literally), preventing healthy people (or at least people without the dangerous infection) from participating in standard economic activity because they have not chosen to take a specific medication is wrong.

    "I'm not going to forcefully inject you, but I will take away your rights and/or livelihood even if you're otherwise perfectly healthy" is still a forceful tactic.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2021
  13. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    This is a valid question. However, considering the alleged recovery rate of infected individuals is generally over 99.9% (with the exception of the elderly, which is still over 90% but not nearly as good) even a 1% adverse reaction result would mean that the vaccine should have it's benefits weighed against the risk, particularly if it is ineffective on certain points. If you have a 99.997%* recovery rate (not sure if this accounts for treatments, which are available as well, or not), and 0.01% of vaccine recipients die, with a 95%* efficacy rate... should you take the vaccine? Is it "safe" compared to simply getting the disease itself?

    *(claimed by US CDC for certain age groups, particularly younger ones, later initially claimed by Pfizer, though I believe it's gone down since, though I'm not sure specifics.)

    More data would help people make this choice... but it remains that it shows that people should make their own choice, based on their individual circumstances. Taking that choice away from people is wrong. Even if they make an "incorrect" choice on a given issue, it's still preferable to someone forcing or coercing them to make an "incorrect" choice.

    Saying it's "safe" and thus everyone "must" take it simply not accurate, particularly since we also don't know how much under/over-reporting is done in terms of adverse reactions (though such reporting agencies have claimed studies showing a great deal of under-reporting). It's also particularly worth noting that this ignores potential long-term side effects.
  14. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    There is no available data to reach that conclusion. Particularly with the high degree with which variants have apparently come up, and the declaration that those that have taken the vaccine can still spread disease (and thus still need to weark masks, according to Fauci and the like). Indeed, apparently Canada recently ordered 7 times their population's worth in shots. Assuming they aren't merely hoarding medication and/or padding the pockets of special interests (not at all a safe assumption), that means at a 6-month timing they likely expect the disease to persist for several more years.

    Given the inability of Influenza Vaccines to eradicate the disease (let alone any vaccine to kill the common cold, which COVID is closest to), and the similar (and higher rate, if statistics are to be beleived) transmission of COVID there's every reason to believe that COVID will remain with us as long or longer than the Flu.

    My individual decision on whether or not to have a given vaccine has no meaningful impact on the economy. The impact on the economy has come from the choice to implement generalized lockdowns (often with individual exemptions for big businesses deemed "essential" and the politicians implementing them ignoring them when they don't think they're on camera). To the extent that politicians insist on keeping the lockdowns, despite no proof of efficacy compared to control groups, is based on vaccination rates... sure, but that's their decision, not mine. Indeed, there's no particular reason to believe that lockdowns won't be used again even given vaccinations reaching certain goals, since the goalposts move at the politician's whims.

    I'm not indecisive on this by the way. I have a natural immunity, and I have seen absolutely no reason to get a vaccine for myself, nor, given it's apparent lack of efficacy, do I recommend it to others. I'm not against vaccination on principle, I firmly support the use of vaccines which are proven to be effective, and they do exist... just not for the Flu A or B, the Common Cold, or it would seem, SARS1 or 2.

    As for this: "So you not hurting yourself..."

    If a society demands I hurt myself, when I am otherwise perfectly healthy, law abiding, etc... for it's own percieved self-interest...

    Firk that society.

    "Don't be so selfish and hurt yourself so I can be better" is not a good argument. I have no problem with sacrificing my own life for the good of others when I know it will do so, but I will not do so simply because YOU or a government demands it, or in the manner so demannded. If and when I do so, I'll do so by my own choice, and in the manner I know to be most effective.

    Including, but not limited to, being willing to die to defend my and your own freedoms when it comes to what you inject into your body. Though certainly at this time I don't think it will come to that.
  15. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    The responsiblity for this is not applied to any individual. Once you start doing that, you're Firked.

    Besides, mutations happen within vaccinated people as well. Indeed, many scientists point to the fact that varients seem to show up in highly vaccinated populations as ad-hoc evidence. Not ideal, but gets the point across.

    Further, aside from being potentially an engineered virus, there is always the risk of mutation. SARS1 at least was determined to be precisely that. It mutated itself out of being a concern, but it also mutated itself into being one in the first place.

    I MIGHT get struck by lightning or hit by a meteor when I go outside, it's true, but that doesn't mean the government has the right to keep me inside even if it's "for my own protection." Particularly since there's no particular reason to believe that anyone else impacted by that strike would be less so if I wasn't there. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that a more harmful variant will be that much more likely to emerge from someone vaccinated, unvaccinated, or from a completely different strain (SARS3 emerging at some point for example, or another deadly flu on the scale of 1918, or a completely different scenario).

    According to what data? The "expert" Fauci has already claimed it has no impact on at least the "Delta" variant, but I haven't seen data on the "normal" variant... or indeed how they can distinguish between the two on a broad basis through testing. That question has been left unanswered outside of "we trust what the experts tell us".

    But while we're looking at data: Indeed, in the Isle of Gibralter, which has a nearly 100% vaccination rate, their case rate increased by over a factor for a time. Surly a 99% vaccination rate would provide significant "herd immunity" and not all those cases are immune-supressed individuals which could not benefit from the shot? Maybe this is just a case of faulty testing but if so, and that testing is used to determine so much... can we really claim to have accurate data about vaccine effectiveness in the first place?

    What % have you seen claimed it prevents? Not 100%, we all agree on that... but is it 99%? 50%? 1%? 0.0001%?

    Is the methodology used to determine this effective and accurate?

    If it's not, than what metric is being used to determine this?

    At what point does any of this actually justify a forcible mandate rather than allowing people to make their own decisions, including the "correct" one from your perspective of taking the shot since it's clearly so beneficial without significant downsides? Why does it justify to you, the overriding of people's ability to have informed consent or the right to reject medication?

    Because "your right"? The "people I believe are right?" That's your choice to believe your right, but don't try to force it on others, even if it means that those others truly choose the wrong choice.

    I believe in God, that Jesus is our savior, and that those who reject Him doom themselves in the process. Yet despite this, and despite the 100% efficacy rate of Jesus saving those whom choose to believe in Him (and I do mean in Him, not in religious christianity)... I don't try to force people to make that choice. I don't mandate it as a requirement for going to school or getting a job. I encourage people to make what I believe is the "right choice" but I don't try to force it on them. Even though if everyone did their best to follow Jesus' teachings and earnestly seek after God I think it would not just benefit themselves but the entire world.

    You agree that giving mandating Hormone therapy is wrong, yet you and Sokolov see it as a "slippery slope" argument... but it isn't. You have taken the position that "the government should make choices for people" even overriding the individual or their parents in the case of children... but it seems like you've chosen that because it's a specific position you believe in...

    "I like it when the government forces people to do things, medically, I agree with, but reject the government forcing people to do things, medically, I disagree with." You support "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, even though that by definition impacts other lives as a direct consequence But not choice when it comes to vaccination, under the argument that it MIGHT impact other lives even without any malice or will to do so. Do you not see the difference here? And if you don't... why support one freedom but not the other?

    When you assign responsibility of the people's health care to government, you forfeit the right to make your own choices. Whether it's a vaccine, hormones, or anything else. Today you might agree with what their doing. But tomorrow you might not... but then what choices do you have if you've already ceded your rights? Of course, there are already choices, but some choices are much easier with a more solid foundation.

    "First they came for the anti-vaxxers, but I wasn't anti-vax so I didn't speak up..."

    And again, I'm not against vaccines in general, or medicine, etc. I am against forcing healthy people to take a medication or undergo a medical proceedure (experimental or otherwise) against their will, or forcing any medication which is not directly related to saving their individual life under emergency situations if/when a legal caretaker/executor of state etc. is not available to consult and danger to life is imminent.
  16. GabrielQ

    GabrielQ I need me some PIE!

    Look you keep going on circles.

    First: mutation might happen on everyone, but as vaccinated people get infected less, they obviously contribute less to this phenomenon.
    Second: Yes I trust experts because I lack the knowledge and equipment to make these kind of tests by myself in any case. I have no reason to believe that health professionals all over the world have decided on the same things because some higher power commands it.
    Third: you can see with your own eyes how masks and vaccines work, is as simple as talking a walk through cemeteries and ICU wards. Why trust data when your own eyes will provide? I don't think those people with mechanical respiratory assistance where actors.
    Fourth: wearing a mask is much less an issue as people against it want to make it look like.
    Fifth: I believe is the government's responsibility to make public health decisions. Vaccinating is a public health decision, your hormone therapy example does not relate at all.
    Six: you don't believe in tests? that's fine, but they seem to accurately predict deaths and ICU occupation, so you gotta give them that, as bad as they might be, they have proven to be an effective tool to base decision taking.
    Seven: belief or disbelief in god has nothing to do with this, but thanks for sharing
    Eight: Everything you said after "Slippery Slope Argument" is literally an even slippier and slopier argument than last time.
    Ninth: you are saying you are not against the product "vaccine" but you are against mandatory vaccination as per your description. Well, this is why people can't be afforded the right to choose on certain things, freedoms are guaranteed by our rights, but we also have obligations under the law, don't forget that.
  17. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This is a lie.

    Pfizer and Moderna did not skip animal trials

    Long term studies are on-going, which is typical of all vaccines. People regularly study long-term effects of vaccines. You can't study long-term effects of something... without studying it... long-term.

    But keep in mind that it becomes harder to harder to prove causation the further out you go.

    That said, if you understand what vaccines actually do, and how they work, and the history of the existing vaccines, you'd know that long-term side effects are extremely unlikely and isn't supported by historical precedent for modern vaccines that don't feature live viruses.

    Heck, even the INTENDED effects (e.g. protection from infection and reduction of symptoms) don't last "long-term" either - and this is true whether it's COVID vaccines, most other vaccines and even natural immunity.

    I am not saying there's no possibility of long-term side effects, but they ARE being studied, and they are also extremely unlikely so the concern is largely overblown.

    No such thing happened. It's an anti-vax myth.

    Fact check: COVID-19 vaccine makers did not halt animal tests, and there were no widespread animal deaths

    No source provide for your claim, but here's a study that says the opposite of what you claim:

    Notice how, when you say "no evidence" I can immediately provide it in the form of scientific studies. When I say there's no evidence for the election being stolen, you say "But sworn affidavits and Mike Lindell." I hope you see the difference in the quality of the "evidence."


    It's also important to note that there's also little evidence of dangerous short-term side effects of the COVID vaccines.

    We discussed how the VAERS database really doesn't provide much credible evidence of this supposed problem, and hospitalization data tells us that unvaccinated people are overwhelming hospitals for COVID-19, not vaccinated people with dangerous side effects.

    I mean, with 5.3 billion COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, I think that's pretty good evidence that the thing isn't going to be killing a whole bunch of people as some claim or fear or else we'd be swimming in people dead from vaccines by now.

    We also see how vaccines, in general, are safe and effective, and the legal process for vaccine injuries has so few complaints compared to the vaccines administered

    So even if we don't know if masks work and there might be a small, minute chance of long-term side effects, it seems like the math is heavily weighted towards taking the vaccine as a good idea.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    While true, the caveats are as follows:
    • PPE of the types we have now were not readily available
    • for many, "cheese cloth" counted as masks, because it was all they had
    • public co-operation was low, even in the face of mandates, then, as with now
    "One difficulty in the use of the face mask is the failure of cooperation on the part of the public. When, in pneumonia and influence wards, it has been nearly impossible to force the orderlies or even some of the physicians and nurses to wear their masks as prescribed, it is difficult to see how a general measure of this nature could be enforced in the community at large.”

    Heck, they even still held PARADES:

    So I personally question whether this qualifies as good evidence for masks not working in a pandemic or whether it was more about the public's inability to do it properly, as is the case now.

    Source? I have not seen this.

    The only thing I've ever read was a Surgeon General report at the time that suggested that IMPROPER use and lack of PROPER HYGEINE when it came to masks MAY increase the risk infection.

    It was not a study.

    Anyway, I am not going to claim to know exactly how effective masks actually are, but I think the characterization that they "indeed caused more harm than good" is problematic unless you present actual evidence supporting that statement.

    There was a study about children's masks in JAMA networks that suggested higher rates of CO2 but it has since been retracted:

    "The Research Letter, “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” by Harald Walach, PhD, and colleagues published online in JAMA Pediatrics on June 30, 2021,1 is hereby retracted. Following publication, numerous scientific issues were raised regarding the study methodology, including concerns about the applicability of the device used for assessment of carbon dioxide levels in this study setting, and whether the measurements obtained accurately represented carbon dioxide content in inhaled air, as well as issues related to the validity of the study conclusions. In their invited responses to these and other concerns, the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve these issues, as determined by editorial evaluation and additional scientific review. Given fundamental concerns about the study methodology, uncertainty regarding the validity of the findings and conclusions, and the potential public health implications, the editors have retracted this Research Letter."
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  19. chickenpox2

    chickenpox2 I need me some PIE!

    Sok just give it up Ohmin is a troll/grifter who clearly doesn't care about his own countrymen or his own life trying to convince him otherwise is pointless
  20. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I have selected a handful of studies/experiments that seem to show that masks are effective:


    "In effect, the mask acts as a temporal low-pass filter, smoothens the droplet rate over time, and reduces the overall transmission. For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a factor of 2, and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. The speech pattern is no longer recognizable, and most of the droplets, compared to the control trial, are removed. The curve for the surgical mask is not visible on this scale."​


    "Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings."​


    "Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1 In recent laboratory experiments, multilayer cloth masks were more effective than single-layer masks, blocking as much as 50% to 70% of exhaled small droplets and particles.2,3 In some cases, cloth masks have performed similar to surgical or procedure masks for source control. Second, masks protect uninfected wearers. Masks form a barrier to large respiratory droplets that could land on exposed mucous membranes of the eye, nose, and mouth. Masks can also partially filter out small droplets and particles from inhaled air. Multiple layers of fabric and fabrics with higher thread counts improve filtration. However, the observed effectiveness of cloth masks to protect the wearer is lower than their effectiveness for source control,3 and the filtration capacity of cloth masks can be highly dependent on design, fit, and materials used. Standards for cloth masks are needed to help consumers select marketed products.​

    At a hair salon in which all staff and clients were required to wear a mask under local ordinance and company policy, 2 symptomatic, infected stylists attended to 139 clients and no infections were observed in the 67 clients who were reached for interviewing and testing. During a COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, persons who wore masks experienced a 70% lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.4"​


    This one is fun. They used a laser to light up droplets so you can SEE the difference between having a face covering and not.

    You can see a video demonstration at the link.​


    Beijing study that found mask use PRIOR to symptoms appearing reduced transmission rates by 79%.​



    Most studies of masks, unfortunately, are observational (like this one from Austrialian that linked a decline in cases to a mask mandate where surveys showed a high rate of compliance), rather than randomized/controlled trials, so they are less concrete in terms of quality of evidence.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021

Share This Page