COVID19

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I’m severely hesitant in taking it from the Army. There’s a significant, documented history, similar to the Tuskegee experiment, with soldiers receiving new vaccines from the Army medical system. That’s why I’m not thrilled with the idea, because I can be forced to take it, and I will be.

[TheLastGentleman]

It still amazes me how the same people who chastise others for being overly worried about COVID can be scared so shitless by a vaccine. What a world we live in.

[DColeKC]

It still amazes me how the same people who chastise others for being overly worried about COVID can be scared so shitless by a vaccine. What a world we live in.

It still amazes me how the same people who scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" and defend abortion rights think it's ok to shame someone for not wanting to put something INTO their body. I'm not scared of it and will get it as soon as I'm eligible, but I also won't be putting anyone down who doesn't get it, regardless of why they make that choice.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

[FangKC]

There are people with health conditions who cannot take the vaccine. They are also vulnerable to COVID. Many would die if they got COVID. To protect these people who cannot get vaccinated because of underlying immune conditions, it is important for the rest of us to get vaccinated to reach enough herd immunity to protect THEM. They are basically imprisoned in their homes right now. For them to re-enter society, we need to all get vaccinated.

Community immunity protects everyone. But it’s especially important because some people can’t get vaccinated for certain diseases — such as people with some serious allergies and those with weakened or failing immune systems (like people who have cancer, HIV/AIDS, type 1 diabetes, or other health conditions).

https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/protection

Others include people with immune disorders, cancer, and those who are undergoing chemotherapy and radiation.

When you are out in the community, you don't know how many of these people you regularly come in contact with, and don't know it. Some of them are single parents. If you have COVID without symptoms and infect them, and they die, you have denied children of perhaps their only parent.

I keep explaining this to people and they don't seem to have ability to conceive of this. It's maddening. However, I am old enough now to realize there are always people who don't give a crap about others in their community -- just themselves.

[TheLastGentleman]

It still amazes me how the same people who scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" and defend abortion rights think it's ok to shame someone for not wanting to put something INTO their body. I'm not scared of it and will get it as soon as I'm eligible, but I also won't be putting anyone down who doesn't get it, regardless of why they make that choice.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

Refusing to vaccinated prolongs humanity's fight against a deadly disease. Getting an abortion doesn't. These are not comparable.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

This is the first I've heard of this theory. Please elaborate.

[DColeKC]

It still amazes me how the same people who scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" and defend abortion rights think it's ok to shame someone for not wanting to put something INTO their body. I'm not scared of it and will get it as soon as I'm eligible, but I also won't be putting anyone down who doesn't get it, regardless of why they make that choice.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

Refusing to vaccinated prolongs humanity's fight against a deadly disease. Getting an abortion doesn't. These are not comparable.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

This is the first I've heard of this theory. Please elaborate.

I wish everyone would get vaccinated who safely can. The positive outcome of a mostly vaccinated society is great, still doesn't mean one should be shamed for being nervous or flat out not wanting to get the virus. There are many immune compromised folks every year who are high risk for getting the flu, yet no shaming for those who don't get the vaccine. And yes, I understand Covid-19 is more deadly than the common flu.

As for the theory, shaming those who voted for Trump didn't work out did it? I mean, we got Biden but we also got the capital riots. If you don't think being told they were dumb, racist and deplorable emboldened them to dig in, you're delusional.

[earthling]

Wow so blow off the experimental status and essentially take away rights to make one's own risk decision just because anti-vaxr's also point that out. Got it. That's an approach ideology extremists take. If the vax's were equally safe as approved vax's they'd give it approval status. We're in a public trial with a product still in beta.

If these were an officially approved vaxs it would be more appropriate talk about the moral social responsibility to participate but there were short cuts taken.. with time. And therefore it would be morally wrong to pressure others to participate in something literally deemed as experimental. However it's fantastic these are available for those who choose to use.

I guess now we are just gonna completely shift the goalposts and switch over from the bogus "vaccine-driven mutations" argument.

It appears you are spinning things as you go to try and discredit the pathologist who was simply saying the vax is appropriate for those at risk but a reasonable chance of longer term consequences when applied to the masses given the short timeframe of trials. You made your own assessment (after indicating all of us here including yourself are not qualified to do so) from link noting what pathologist was referring to and you disagreed with him. And 'vaccine-induced mutations' is just a loosely used term that you were also earlier nitpicking. You're resorting to nitpicking semantics now and even quoting it incorrectly.

Bringing up other related information is not 'switching goalposts'. The rollout (at least in Florida) is being positioned as a public trial. You have to sign a form accepting the vaccine is 'experimental' and the form uses complex liability language that few will understand indicating the drug makers have no accountability. Those kinds of terms apply to trials not general usage of approved products. You appear to claim that everyone should just blow that off because it's like an anti-vaxr talking point so therefore automatically bogus. If the vaccine isn't experimental, they need to take that off the forms you must accept.

"You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-v ... wsuit.html

I'm happy to participate in the public trial especially as the short term consequences appear nearly nil, but it's wrong to shame others for not participating in an extended public trial.

[phuqueue]

I’m severely hesitant in taking it from the Army. There’s a significant, documented history, similar to the Tuskegee experiment, with soldiers receiving new vaccines from the Army medical system. That’s why I’m not thrilled with the idea, because I can be forced to take it, and I will be.

Not really the same thing unless the Army has its own vaccine it's going to be testing on soldiers, instead of just using the same ones that have already gone through the standard phases of testing, received emergency authorization in the US and full authorization abroad, and been administered to millions of people.

It still amazes me how the same people who chastise others for being overly worried about COVID can be scared so shitless by a vaccine. What a world we live in.

It still amazes me how the same people who scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" and defend abortion rights think it's ok to shame someone for not wanting to put something INTO their body. I'm not scared of it and will get it as soon as I'm eligible, but I also won't be putting anyone down who doesn't get it, regardless of why they make that choice.

Not to mention, if shaming people for not getting a vaccine becomes commonplace, so will the resistance to getting it.

"Shaming" somebody is hardly equivalent to placing hard legal limits on bodily autonomy, and that's before we get into the dramatically different power dynamics at play here vs. abortion. You are way too hung up on this "shame" thing for some reason, and it's really not the main point here. The focus on "shame" recasts anti-vaxxers as the victims when they are in fact the ones recklessly risking their own and other people's lives.

Wow so blow off the experimental status and essentially take away rights to make one's own risk decision just because anti-vaxr's also point that out. Got it. That's an approach ideology extremists take. If the vax's were equally safe as approved vax's they'd give it approval status. We're in a public trial with a product still in beta.

If these were an officially approved vaxs it would be more appropriate talk about the moral social responsibility to participate but there were short cuts taken.. with time. And therefore it would be morally wrong to pressure others to participate in something literally deemed as experimental. However it's fantastic these are available for those who choose to use.

I guess now we are just gonna completely shift the goalposts and switch over from the bogus "vaccine-driven mutations" argument.

It appears you are spinning things as you go to try and discredit the pathologist who was simply saying the vax is appropriate for those at risk but a reasonable chance of longer term consequences when applied to the masses given the short timeframe of trials.

What spin? In your previous post, you completely dropped the thread about mutations and switched over to talking about how the vaccine is "experimental" and if it were as safe as other vaccines then it clearly would have received an ordinary approval already. I'm not trying to "discredit" the pathologist, who isn't here and hasn't spoken for himself, so I don't know what arguments he would actually make here or what points he would offer in support of them. I am discrediting the things you are saying, and I stand by my original assertion that it is irresponsible for a doctor to share opinions with laypeople that run counter to the efforts of public health agencies. Your pathologist friend may be deeply familiar with or even personally engaged in research on vaccine resistance, and he may be qualified to form this opinion himself, but that doesn't mean that he should casually share it with people who lack his background and expertise. And of course, he also may not be familiar with that research or qualified to form an opinion on it, it might actually be totally outside of his wheelhouse, because, after all, specialists are only experts on the thing they specialize in, and in that case his title as "pathologist" lends unearned weight to his actually-unsound opinion. None of us have any way of knowing which of these is the case, which, again, is why he should hold his tongue.

You made your own assessment (after saying none of us are qualified to do so) from link noting what pathologist was referring to and you disagreed with him.

What I specifically said was: "It's irresponsible for people who don't actually have any idea what they're talking about (such as all of us, myself included, on this message board) to spread scaremongering information that is possibly incomplete or even outright incorrect," and I think you'll find that I have not spread any such information. In discussing the article, I'm not disagreeing with "him" (he has, after all, not said anything here for me to disagree with), I'm disagreeing with you. My "assessment" of the article is, first, that you probably didn't bother to actually read all of it, as evidenced by the quote I provided in an earlier post that directly addressed the argument you are trying to make; and second, that you almost certainly didn't look at the actual papers on which the article was based, which clearly state, in language that does not require biological or medical expertise to understand, what they are actually about, and it isn't what you claim the article says (but, in your defense, the article itself isn't actually that clear about what the papers really say, which makes it, in my "assessment," not a super great article). As for the vaccines themselves, I don't feel I've really made any kind of "assessment" of my own, I'm just relying on the assessments of the FDA and the various other regulators around the world who have cleared the vaccines for widespread human use. So I guess my "assessment" there is that these agencies are basically competent and trustworthy, at least vis-a-vis these vaccines, which you are free to agree or disagree with, but either way, it's not fundamentally a medical question.

And 'vaccine-induced mutations' is just a loosely used term that you were also earlier nitpicking. You're resorting to nitpicking semantics now and even quoting it incorrectly.

I don't consider it nitpicking to point out that you are using terminology that implies a relationship that doesn't exist, but that does reflect common misconceptions about how pathogens behave and how evolution works. I mean, if you're just using it as easy shorthand for a process that you correctly understand, then fine, but it hasn't been self-evident from your posts that you do correctly understand how evolution works, and if you don't, then that is germane to the discussion.

Bringing up other related information is not 'switching goalposts'. The rollout (at least in Florida) is being positioned as a public trial. You have to sign a form accepting the vaccine is 'experimental' and the form uses complex liability language that few will understand indicating the drug makers have no accountability. Those kinds of terms apply to trials not general usage of approved products. You appear to claim that everyone should just blow that off because it's like an anti-vaxr talking point so therefore automatically bogus. If the vaccine isn't experimental, they need to take that off the forms you must accept.

The vax's "experimental" status is not in any way related to your initially-stated concern that failure to achieve herd immunity could lead to "stronger variants." These are completely separate things that only have in common that they could both make a person concerned about whether they should get vaccinated. This is what makes it actually textbook moving the goalposts -- although you were unable or unwilling to continue defending your first argument, you simply switched over to another one, both in service of your actual point, that the vaccines are scary and it's ok if people don't get them (even if one of the reasons they're scary is that it apparently might be dangerous if not enough people get them). And it's your actual point that isn't just "like an anti-vax talking point," it actually just is anti-vax.

[earthling]

^ I expanded to a related topic (related to impact from the trials being short) because there wasn't anything more to discuss on other - you made your statements and I relayed mine with nothing new at the table as you were from my perspective getting into nitpicking semantics.

On the vax rollout, so you're saying that everyone should ignore the terms of what is actually a public trial (essentially the same kind of terms we'd see in a trial given the experimental terminology in addition to no accountability for drug makers) because you feel it 'is' anti-vax to point it out. No one should consider this because it's just fear mongering and therefore shaming is justified. Got it. Sounds to me like you want to suppress transparency in order to press an agenda. I'm good with the agenda and accept the terms, but would not shame others for not accepting those terms.

[DColeKC]

"Shaming" somebody is hardly equivalent to placing hard legal limits on bodily autonomy, and that's before we get into the dramatically different power dynamics at play here vs. abortion. You are way too hung up on this "shame" thing for some reason, and it's really not the main point here. The focus on "shame" recasts anti-vaxxers as the victims when they are in fact the ones recklessly risking their own and other people's lives.

I'm hung up on the shame thing because I think it's wrong and anyone who shames people over this is a weak person. Same goes for those who shame folks who have decided to get it by calling them "sheep" or whatever. I'm just sick and tired of the back and forth over this pandemic.

[earthling]

Would imagine that when this is ready for children and perhaps gets to level of requiring vax for say school attendance, they would need to remove from the terms that drug makers are not accountable. Would be reasonable to pressure Congress to act if need be as that would probably be a problem for more than just anti-vaxrs and others concerned about those trial-like terms for adults.

[phuqueue]

^ I expanded to a related topic (related to impact from the trials being short) because there wasn't anything more to discuss on other - you made your statements and I relayed mine with nothing new at the table as you were from my perspective getting into nitpicking semantics.

It's not related, though, except in that it is meant to sow uncertainty about getting vaccinated. It's otherwise entirely unrelated to your original concern about mutations.

On the vax rollout, so you're saying that everyone should ignore the terms of what is actually a public trial (essentially the same kind of terms we'd see in a trial given the experimental terminology in addition to no accountability for drug makers) because you feel it 'is' anti-vax to point it out. No one should consider this because it's just fear mongering and therefore shaming is justified. Got it. Sounds to me like you want to suppress transparency in order to press an agenda. I'm good with the agenda and accept the terms, but would not shame others for not accepting those terms.

People can consider whatever they want, but what they should consider, instead of getting rattled by words that they think sound ominous but that they don't actually have any background or qualifications to assess, is that the vaccines have been approved for widespread use by regulators around the world and that if they fail to get vaccinated, they endanger the lives of others who can't get vaccinated (and as far as mutations go, they are creating more opportunities for a mutation to emerge that could be less susceptible to the immune response triggered by the vaccine, potentially endangering even those who have been vaccinated, but that risk is more remote at the individual level -- the odds that new variants will emerge in a large unvaccinated population are high, but the odds that a new variant will emerge in any particular individual are very low, and I have no idea what the odds are that new variants will not be affected by existing vaccines). The very real risk of not getting vaccinated has to be weighed against the completely speculative risk that something, who even knows what, might happen that has not yet happened in any of the millions of people who have already received the vaccine. What is anti-vax is to play up and leverage people's unfounded fears of the latter. The fact that you're going to get vaccinated yourself doesn't change the fact that you are spreading anti-vax hysteria.

In any event, I mean, do you even have a copy of this liability waiver that you can share with us? Cuz if not, then I don't really have any interest in talking about the content of a document I've never seen. What I have seen is the fact sheet that is required to be provided with the vaccine, and it didn't contain anything that struck me as concerning. We've already gone over the not-at-all concerning fact that the waiver exists. We've gone over the "experimental"/"unapproved" status of the vax. What else is there to say?

"Shaming" somebody is hardly equivalent to placing hard legal limits on bodily autonomy, and that's before we get into the dramatically different power dynamics at play here vs. abortion. You are way too hung up on this "shame" thing for some reason, and it's really not the main point here. The focus on "shame" recasts anti-vaxxers as the victims when they are in fact the ones recklessly risking their own and other people's lives.

I'm hung up on the shame thing because I think it's wrong and anyone who shames people over this is a weak person. Same goes for those who shame folks who have decided to get it by calling them "sheep" or whatever. I'm just sick and tired of the back and forth over this pandemic.

To be clear, for the I-don't-know-how-many-th time, I'm not the one who even introduced "shame" into this discussion. The whole shame thing is a deflection. Your shame-vs-sheeple thing here is a false equivalency because actually, in both instances, the anti-vaxxers are the bad guy: on the "shame" side, they are the bad guy for endangering other people, and on the "sheeple" side, they are the bad guy for being unjustified dicks. I am not actively seeking out people to shame, but if somebody tells me they're choosing not to get the vaccine, I will call them a dumbass. Feel free to clutch your pearls over it, but I'm really not interested in talking about "shaming people" anymore. It is a frivolous concern.

[earthling]

I acknowledge these are your positions and interpretations. Thanks for helping refine approach when running into others shaming.

It has been already addressed that the drug makers have no accountability for COVID vaxs on a Fed vax program that has not been applied for the masses. I don't have the forms as I was helping my elderly uncle taking the shots in Florida back in Jan/Feb but if your vax site didn't include a form disclosing that, is an example of issues with transparency on this extended public trial rollout. And the waivers should be provided when signing up, not minutes before taking shot.

[phuqueue]

It has never been my experience that medical liability waivers are provided before you show up for your appointment, so I don't really find it alarming that they weren't provided in advance to your uncle in this case either, but I think this horse is pretty dead. There is a ton of info about the vaccines out there, including the FDA-required fact sheets, that is easily available on the internet to anyone who wants to do their research before they go in. We can go back and forth on this ad nauseam, but I just don't see anything sinister here and this isn't even the topic of conversation I signed up for when I jumped into this thread anymore.

[earthling]

^Acknowledged you see it that way.

[DColeKC]

Who cares who introduced shaming into this conversation, you’re the only one saying it’s perfectly acceptable to shame others for not getting the vaccine.

[im2kull]

It has never been my experience that medical liability waivers are provided before you show up for your appointment, so I don't really find it alarming that they weren't provided in advance to your uncle in this case either, but I think this horse is pretty dead. There is a ton of info about the vaccines out there, including the FDA-required fact sheets, that is easily available on the internet to anyone who wants to do their research before they go in. We can go back and forth on this ad nauseam, but I just don't see anything sinister here and this isn't even the topic of conversation I signed up for when I jumped into this thread anymore.

Have you had your anthrax vaccine yet?

[phuqueue]

earthling gets accused of moving the goalposts, so im2kull shows up all "the hell with moving goalposts, I'm taking this thing to a whole different stadium"

[Anthony_Hugo98]

It has never been my experience that medical liability waivers are provided before you show up for your appointment, so I don't really find it alarming that they weren't provided in advance to your uncle in this case either, but I think this horse is pretty dead. There is a ton of info about the vaccines out there, including the FDA-required fact sheets, that is easily available on the internet to anyone who wants to do their research before they go in. We can go back and forth on this ad nauseam, but I just don't see anything sinister here and this isn't even the topic of conversation I signed up for when I jumped into this thread anymore.

Have you had your anthrax vaccine yet?

I have, it’s trash. My arm was swollen to the size of a softball for a solid week

[TheSmokinPun]

You'd think the whole "benefits outweigh the risks" thing would help ease people over but nope. Guess they now believe that every country in the world is in on this vaccine turning you into a muskrat or something.