Not vaccinated=selfish & irresponsible?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

What's your point?

How can you not know what the point was? It should be pretty clear. You're free to disagree with the point, or make another related point if you think it's relevant, but I think you need to figure out the point first. Best of luck!

 

[kookbreaker]

You could have also mentioned the current President and Vice President of the US, as they both mentioned having fears that Trump would (somehow) rush the vaccine and it would therefore be unsafe.

Given that Trump in August of 2020 was singing the praises of Russia’s new vaccine, a vaccine everyone except the White House knew was not properly tested this would not surprise me.

 

[acbytesla]

How can you not know what the point was? It should be pretty clear. You're free to disagree with the point, or make another related point if you think it's relevant, but I think you need to figure out the point first. Best of luck!

No, I don't get the point.

That they didn't trust Trump and his administration to do the right thing seems to be the point. Is that your point?

If it is, why would they? Why would anyone?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I think the point is when Trump was in charge the rhetoric was "don't rush the vaccine" and when they took over it became "rush the vaccine".

I don't agree with that assessment of what was and is actually said of course.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the point is when Trump was in charge the rhetoric was "don't rush the vaccine" and when they took over it became "rush the vaccine".

I don't agree with that assessment of what was and is actually said of course.

But that's not reality. No one was ever saying don't rush the vaccine. They were saying don't sacrifice safety by rushing the vaccine.

Trump is a terrible messenger for the thinking world. He has proven himself to be so selfish, so corrupt, so dishonest that no one can't accept him at his word EVER.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh I know, I'm in agreement with you. I'm just saying that I think that was the point. It's whataboutism only wrong from the outset.

 

[wobs]

Of course the number of unvaccinated people is related to the chance of a variant arising.

Are you sure?
I thought all it needed to increase the change to have a new variant, was enough cases to give it the change of one. As such, the UK should also be an excellent place to find a new variant, despite having a good vaccine rate.

Also, the vaccine doesn't seem that good at slowing transmitting from what I've read.

If I'm miunderstanding what you're saying or there is some evidence I have missed, then I apologise, but it seems that new variants will occur in even in heavily vaccinated areas if left unchecked.

 

[angrysoba]

Honestly feel like these are questions that would have taken less time to google than to write up.

Your claim = your homework project!

I normally fall on the side of providing proof of claims. So, just some top search results -

Vanity Fair, Time, Washington Post, NBC News, Vice, CNN. If I didn't feel a no true scottsman coming on after this I would just keep listing but I think this will suffice to get where I am coming from.

Okay, I just looked at your first link, and that will be enough.

Here is the issue mentioned in Vanity Fair:

According to the Times, the Trump administration has stood in the way of vaccine safety guidelines the FDA submitted two weeks ago, taking particular issue with a mandate that an inoculation only be approved after volunteers from clinical trials are followed for two months to rule out adverse effects. Those extra two months, while crucial to ensure both the safety of the vaccine and public confidence in it, would also push any authorization well past November 3, keeping Trump from getting a boost in the polls.

In other words, there is no problem with the vaccine on the timeline that we actually had. The only worry was that he would circumvent that particular timeline by having the vaccine pushed out before the election.

That was a legitimate concern because it would go against expert opinion.

However, the "concerns" we have now from people who say, "It's too rushed!" are from idiots like Bret Weinstein who want people to worry about deaths or infertility or ovarian cancer many years down the line.

In other words, there is a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate concern.

 

[dirtywick]

I think the main worry with Trump was if Jared Kushner's college room mate opened a company called VaxNinjas then they’d get a fast tracked distribution contract while a couple of hedge fund managers got some important FDA positions and suddenly there’s a billion doses of vaccine in a warehouse in Guantanamo. Something of that sort.

 

[Roboramma]

Are you sure?
I thought all it needed to increase the change to have a new variant, was enough cases to give it the change of one. As such, the UK should also be an excellent place to find a new variant, despite having a good vaccine rate.

Also, the vaccine doesn't seem that good at slowing transmitting from what I've read.

If I'm miunderstanding what you're saying or there is some evidence I have missed, then I apologise, but it seems that new variants will occur in even in heavily vaccinated areas if left unchecked.

I may be wrong: if vaccination doesn't slow the spread or impede transmission, then yeah, it's not going to have much effect on the rate at which new variants arrive.

That seems unlikely to me, even if vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, they should less likely to do so, and do so for a shorter time, than the unvaccinated ill. But then, maybe they're also more likely to be out and about when they get it, so it evens out.

I'm not up to date on the evidence of the vaccine's effect on transmission, so you may be right.

 

[rdwight]

In other words, there is no problem with the vaccine on the timeline that we actually had. The only worry was that he would circumvent that particular timeline by having the vaccine pushed out before the election.

That was a legitimate concern because it would go against expert opinion.

If you say so. The timeline was just created by the FDA for this situation. This is not some tried and true layout they were following. Some found it to be less than they would hoped, others too much. Don't appeal to an authority that doesn't even agree on it and act like that negates the wholly unproven assertion that the vaccine would have been unsafe if approved before the election, vs 2 weeks after for pfizers data/1 month for approval.

Seeing how they started vaccinations in July, I am sure a sizeable portion of their subjects did have the 2 months post vaccination information to refer to. If it was 17k vs the 22k the FDA wanted, do you really believe that is the threshold to base safety? Or an additional week post vaccine? Feel free to show your work on vaccine side effects appearing between 4 to 8 weeks post vaccination.

This is again, partisan spin, which we should condemn when it leads to vaccine hesitancy and conspiracies.

However, the "concerns" we have now from people who say, "It's too rushed!" are from idiots like Bret Weinstein who want people to worry about deaths or infertility or ovarian cancer many years down the line.

In other words, there is a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate concern.

Here is your chance to show your work. Here is the CDC website for adverse events. Which of these happen in the expanded timeframe requested by the FDA? For the rarer events, what level of increased certainty could have been gaged by a few thousand additional volunteers during that timeframe? Why are side effects in the 4-8 week post second shot timeframe more likely than long term possibilities? Which specific ones can you reference from the shots that are in use here?

This is not anti-vax. This is call out ******** when either side does it, because it has consequences. Otherwise don't be surprised when people lose trust.

 

[angrysoba]

If you say so. The timeline was just created by the FDA for this situation. This is not some tried and true layout they were following. Some found it to be less than they would hoped, others too much. Don't appeal to an authority that doesn't even agree on it and act like that negates the wholly unproven assertion that the vaccine would have been unsafe if approved before the election, vs 2 weeks after for pfizers data/1 month for approval.

Don't appeal to authority of the FDA? Whyever not? That is exactly who you should appeal to. Take that away and then what? We are just left with our hunches which is the problem.

Seeing how they started vaccinations in July, I am sure a sizeable portion of their subjects did have the 2 months post vaccination information to refer to. If it was 17k vs the 22k the FDA wanted, do you really believe that is the threshold to base safety? Or an additional week post vaccine? Feel free to show your work on vaccine side effects appearing between 4 to 8 weeks post vaccination.

No, you are saying now that there was a case for going with partial data. I disagree and think that is exactly the problem you get with p-hacking.

This is again, partisan spin, which we should condemn when it leads to vaccine hesitancy and conspiracies.



Here is your chance to show your work. Here is the CDC website for adverse events. Which of these happen in the expanded timeframe requested by the FDA? For the rarer events, what level of increased certainty could have been gaged by a few thousand additional volunteers during that timeframe? Why are side effects in the 4-8 week post second shot timeframe more likely than long term possibilities? Which specific ones can you reference from the shots that are in use here?

This is not anti-vax. This is call out ******** when either side does it, because it has consequences. Otherwise don't be surprised when people lose trust.

What is your issue? You are upset because Donald Trump didn't get to unveil the vaccines, so now you are defending the type of douchebaggery done by FOX News etc... questioning a vaccine that has well and truly been shown to be safe?

 

[catsmate]

Libertarianism kinda struggles with the concept of externalized risk. Their Non-aggression principle works ok-ish when dealing with the idea of intentional violence, but absolutely falls apart when dealing with risk assessment and mitigation or how selfish jackasses can incur broad societal damage orders of magnitude beyond their ability to recompense.

Libertarianism struggles with reality in general.

 

[catsmate]

You are conflating not having the vaccine with being infected. The unvaccinated can not spread the virus, only the infected can. Since I do the bulk of my work from my couch, and don't deal with the general public, or any other human, my chances of catching the virus are all but indistinguishable from zero. Getting the vaccine would actually expose me to more vectors than not getting it. So I'm going to wait a bit longer.

 

[rdwight]

Don't appeal to authority of the FDA? Whyever not? That is exactly who you should appeal to. Take that away and then what? We are just left with our hunches which is the problem.

I made it very clear in my post you quoted, but you decided to not address any portion of it. You can't point to the FDA as the highest authority, unless of course their opinion would have changed to matched Trump or the vaccine producers, in which case they can't be trusted. It seems pretty straightforward where this leads, and promoting distrust in a vaccine before approval with no data to support that assertion is problematic for any number of reasons.

No, you are saying now that there was a case for going with partial data. I disagree and think that is exactly the problem you get with p-hacking.

Again, you do not actually want to engage in the conversation. It was always going to be partial data. And it was always going to be a partial timeframe. That is what you get when you are in the middle of a pandemic where hesitance costs lives.

What is your issue? You are upset because Donald Trump didn't get to unveil the vaccines, so now you are defending the type of douchebaggery done by FOX News etc... questioning a vaccine that has well and truly been shown to be safe?

And this continues to be pointless. You won't actually point to a point I have said that you can attack on the merits, with data or studies. Anything that is critical of Trump is acceptable? You started at you don't remember it happening, now it happened but it was a good thing. An honest thing. The right thing. Because Trump. Got it.

Trying to paint me as a Trump supporter because I disagree with partisan attacks on the safety of vaccines, based on nothing more than a distrust of Trump is laughable. Show me what data these outlets provided to make their concerns credible. Otherwise I don't see a point.

 

[Hercules56]

This seems to be the big question: CAN the virus mutate if it infects a vaccinated person? We already know that vaccinated people do sometimes get infected.

If so, is it possible that a large vaccinated population, going out and about and socializing, could conceivably be responsible for a new variant?

 

[angrysoba]

I made it very clear in my post you quoted, but you decided to not address any portion of it. You can't point to the FDA as the highest authority, unless of course their opinion would have changed to matched Trump or the vaccine producers, in which case they can't be trusted. It seems pretty straightforward where this leads, and promoting distrust in a vaccine before approval with no data to support that assertion is problematic for any number of reasons.




Again, you do not actually want to engage in the conversation. It was always going to be partial data. And it was always going to be a partial timeframe. That is what you get when you are in the middle of a pandemic where hesitance costs lives.




And this continues to be pointless. You won't actually point to a point I have said that you can attack on the merits, with data or studies. Anything that is critical of Trump is acceptable? You started at you don't remember it happening, now it happened but it was a good thing. An honest thing. The right thing. Because Trump. Got it.

Trying to paint me as a Trump supporter because I disagree with partisan attacks on the safety of vaccines, based on nothing more than a distrust of Trump is laughable. Show me what data these outlets provided to make their concerns credible. Otherwise I don't see a point.

Sorry but your claim is not really worth the time because while I do not remember these issues coming up, you posted a link saying that people were concerned that Trump might try to push the vaccines out before the the safety and efficacy of the vaccines had been assessed according to the FDA guidelines. All I am saying is that that is a perfectly legitimate concern and was not only one that existed in the US but also in the UK with its AstraZeneca vaccine. It was also one of the points of criticism of the Sputnik V vaccine.

The legitimate concerns with the vaccines existed back then, not now! That’s the really obvious point so when you ask why it is wrong now but not then it is because it actually because it is wrong now and not then.

The point is that it is you who is trying on some partisan politics.

 

[angrysoba]

This seems to be the big question: CAN the virus mutate if it infects a vaccinated person? We already know that vaccinated people do sometimes get infected.

If so, is it possible that a large vaccinated population, going out and about and socializing, could conceivably be responsible for a new variant?

This is silly. It is a far bigger problem that people who are not vaccinated will do this.

 

[mgidm86]

This seems to be the big question: CAN the virus mutate if it infects a vaccinated person? We already know that vaccinated people do sometimes get infected.

If so, is it possible that a large vaccinated population, going out and about and socializing, could conceivably be responsible for a new variant?

If everyone were vaccinated then mutation would not be nearly as big of a concern because far far fewer people would suffer major complications from it even if it did mutate.

Add to that that a lot of the maskless are not vaccinated as they are the same people who complained about masks and Covid in the first place.

I'm vaccinated and I still wear my mask in public. Go figure.