Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:50 am
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.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:12 pm
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:47 pm
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.
earthling wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:53 pm
phuqueue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:17 am
earthling wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:25 pm
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.
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.