Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Guest makapaka]

38 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Not true. Almost certainly he would have to get multiple future jabs and boosters due to the 'variations' of covid that will likely crop up continously.

But not better than long term testing. I'm not saying computer simulations are without their uses, but again, they also have a solid track record of being spectacularly wrong.

Do you qualifications and experience  on determining the efficacy and safety of vaccines?

 

 

[Carbuncle]

3 hours ago, Jim117 said:

Experimental cocktail. So a weakened/dead/inert version of the virus designed to trigger an immune response then. Same as every other vaccine any of us have ever had. Biology 101.

This is not right. According to wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine ) second paragraph:

 

"Twenty vaccines are authorized by at least one national regulatory authority for public use: two RNA vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna), nine conventional inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, CoronaVac, Covaxin, CoviVac, COVIran Barakat, Minhai-Kangtai, QazVac, and WIBP-CorV), five viral vector vaccines (Sputnik Light, Sputnik V, Oxford–AstraZeneca, Convidecia, and Janssen), and four protein subunit vaccines (Abdala, EpiVacCorona, MVC-COV1901, Soberana 02, and ZF2001)."

 

In the particular case of the UK no "weakened/dead/inert version of the virus" is being used.

 

Even if a weakened version of the virus were being used, under ideal circumstances one would still do long term trials. Of course, circumstances are not ideal.

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

...

The 'anti-vaxxers' aren't anti vax- they are either anti-covid vax, or [like me] anti- compulsory covid vax: that is one of the things you are not understanding, despite having been informed multiple times. The proof is the fact that both I, and several others [who you have labelled as 'anti-vax'] have actually had some vaccines recently- people who have vaccines are clearly not anti-vaxxers, even if they are critical of the covid vax, or, like me, oppose compulsory/coerced covid vaccinations. vaccines

 

 

Have you been labelled as "' anti-vax'"? Not by me- I label you Conspiracy Theorists as you lot fit the the criteria.

 

I would not dream of calling you lot part of the "anti-vaccination" movement which emerged in Victorian times and was populated mostly by radicals, philosophers, rational thinkers, liberals, intellectuals, philosophers and scientists i.e. people despised by Conspiracy Theorists. They stood totally against those who would tell people what was good for them, in those days Monarchy, Religion, Governments and the emerging doctrines of Communism and Fascism. No doubt the emerging political extremism that is controlling Conspiracy Theorists would be right up there.

 

We do need voices that engage and debate and question but please be independent, ask the difficult questions, check the data, get explanations, ensure individuals and organizations are accountable, explain your views, use whatever media you can,

I would read and judge it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Annie Bynnol

[Carbuncle]

53 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Undeniable fact- it has had no long term safety testing, and, only long-term testing can establish 100% that it is safe.

I deny your fact (my bold). There is no method for assuring 100% that a vaccine is safe. Absolute certainty is not available, all that can be done is to do an amount of testing judged (in part subjectively) to be sufficient to keep risks to a reasonable level.

 

If you give the vaccine to 20 000 people in testing then you can not expect to pick up 1 in 100 000 side effects. If you follow trial participants for 3 years then you cannot expect to pick up side effects which take 4 years to develop. Whatever your testing regime there may be combinations of circumstances which create an unrecognized danger.

 

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, Hecate said:

There's recent interesting research exploring the established connection between belief in  conspiracy theories and Machiavellianism, collective narcissism and psychopathy to belief in covid conspiracy theories (eg. Hughes and Machan Personality and Individual Differences 171 (2021) 110559).

And there is no such connection between Machiavellianism, collective narcissism and psychopathy and government agenicies and pharmaceutical companies? 

 

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Do you qualifications and experience  on determining the efficacy and safety of vaccines?

 

 

Difficult to know exactly what you're asking due to the deranged grammar, but, just taking a guess, I would say that one does not need to be a qualified vaccine scientist to know that long-term safety testing is required to establish the long term safety of a vaccine, or, that computer modelling has a track record of being wildly off in it's predictions.

52 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Have you been labelled as "' anti-vax'"? Not by me- I label you Conspiracy Theorists as you lot fit the the criteria.

 

I would not dream of calling you lot part of the "anti-vaccination" movement which emerged in Victorian times and was populated mostly by radicals, philosophers, rational thinkers, liberals, intellectuals, philosophers and scientists i.e. people despised by Conspiracy Theorists. They stood totally against those who would tell people what was good for them, in those days Monarchy, Religion, Governments and the emerging doctrines of Communism and Fascism. No doubt the emerging political extremism that is controlling Conspiracy Theorists would be right up there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the interests of clarity then, which posters on this thread have you decided are 'anti-vaxxers'? And, while we're there, which have you decided are conspiracy theorists?

49 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I deny your fact (my bold). There is no method for assuring 100% that a vaccine is safe. Absolute certainty is not available, all that can be done is to do an amount of testing judged (in part subjectively) to be sufficient to keep risks to a reasonable level.

 

If you give the vaccine to 20 000 people in testing then you can not expect to pick up 1 in 100 000 side effects. If you follow trial participants for 3 years then you cannot expect to pick up side effects which take 4 years to develop. Whatever your testing regime there may be combinations of circumstances which create an unrecognized danger.

 

me- "Undeniable fact- it has had no long term safety testing, and, only long-term testing can establish 100% that it is safe."

That's not to say it is wrong to argue that it almost certainly is safe using methods other than long term safety testing, but, only long term testing can establish is is definitely safe [assuming zero corruption amongst the testing agencies of course]"

 

Well you certainly can't deny the fact that the covid vaccine has had no long term testing. A bit picky to point out the very, very, obvious thing about 100% certainty being impossible- no medication is 100% safe, we all know that.

 

But certainly, when it comes to getting the next best thing, which is 'as close to certain as we can get', then, where long term safety of a vaccine is concerned, long term testing is the best thing [assuming zero corruption amongst the testing agencies of course [or, as close to zero as possible]].

 

Which the covid vaccine hasn't had.

[Carbuncle]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

But certainly, when it comes to getting the next best thing, which is 'as close to certain as we can get', then, where long term safety of a vaccine is concerned, long term testing is the best thing [assuming zero corruption amongst the testing agencies of course [or, as close to zero as possible]].

There is no 'as close to certain [but not certain] as we can get' nor 'as close to zero [but not zero] as possible'. Doing more clinical trial testing can always increase the understanding of the safety profile of a vaccine. At some point you have to say 'we know enough' and make the decision to use the thing (or not). At the bottom of this are people making judgements under conditions of uncertainty. We can delay vaccination, do more testing and reduce the uncertainty and at the end of the increased testing we will still be left with the same kind of question: have we reduced the uncertainty as much as we ought or should we do more testing.

 

[I am not denying that the clinical trials have not collected long-term (2 or 3 years) of safety data in the way one might expect in normal times.]

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

And there is no such connection between Machiavellianism, collective narcissism and psychopathy and government agenicies and pharmaceutical companies?  ...

Oh yes, conspiracy theorists are in interesting company, at least as far as psychopathy traits (callousness, lack of empathy, indifference to suffering etc) are concerned, though I think you're rather too specific: the apparent correlation is more general (company CEOs, in this instance) than directed at any more targeted career path within that category.

[Annie Bynnol]

18 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

In the interests of clarity then, which posters on this thread have you decided are 'anti-vaxxers'? And, while we're there, which have you decided are conspiracy theorists?

I have not used the term 'anti-vaxxers' to describe anybody. 

 

Someone who questions, debates, explains, challenges etc., the use of vaccination does not make them a Conspiracy Theorist, in fact they are making a valuable contribution to the moral, ethical, medical and scientific issues.

 

But we do have contributors who repeatedly tick enough boxes showing that they have a blind allegiance to a Conspiracy Theory making them a Conspiracy Theorist.

 

First they chose a popular 'off the peg' Conspiracy Theory they can share with  others.

Then they do the research- copy the language, copy the sources use unverifyable anecdotes and sources.

They then 'tell you' not inform but 'tell you the truth' and assume any skill, knowledge, occupation, education etc. makes you biased.

When challenged they get upset and call you names or use mild insults.

They also flit quickly moving on to the next bit of evidence, then the next and the next, avoiding questions and refusing to engage at all.

Watch out for the congratulatory messages they send each other providing immoral support.

... fill in your own experiences here...

The endpoint is often a simple word or phrase like "brainwashed", "sheep", "gullible" etc.

 

Of course it is a complete waste of time talking to them but gone are the days of JFK, the Moon, Aliens etc. we are know dealing with actual harm to people and political manipulation.

 

 

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

I have not used the term 'anti-vaxxers' to describe anybody. 

 

Someone who questions, debates, explains, challenges etc., the use of vaccination does not make them a Conspiracy Theorist, in fact they are making a valuable contribution to the moral, ethical, medical and scientific issues.

 

But we do have contributors who repeatedly tick enough boxes showing that they have a blind allegiance to a Conspiracy Theory making them a Conspiracy Theorist.

 

First they chose a popular 'off the peg' Conspiracy Theory they can share with  others.

Then they do the research- copy the language, copy the sources use unverifyable anecdotes and sources.

They then 'tell you' not inform but 'tell you the truth' and assume any skill, knowledge, occupation, education etc. makes you biased.

When challenged they get upset and call you names or use mild insults.

They also flit quickly moving on to the next bit of evidence, then the next and the next, avoiding questions and refusing to engage at all.

Watch out for the congratulatory messages they send each other providing immoral support.

... fill in your own experiences here...

The endpoint is often a simple word or phrase like "brainwashed", "sheep", "gullible" etc.

 

Of course it is a complete waste of time talking to them but gone are the days of JFK, the Moon, Aliens etc. we are know dealing with actual harm to people and political manipulation.

 

 

And which posters on this thread do you consider to be conspiracy theorists.......?

[Annie Bynnol]

12 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

And which posters on this thread do you consider to be conspiracy theorists.......?

"...contributors who repeatedly tick enough boxes..."