Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Culture or luck?

madguy30 said:
There's studies showing that transmission is cut in a big way due to cutting down the viral load even if contraction takes place.

And these vaccines were in the process for years, just needed the correct final parts/samples to be implemented which took place in January 2020 before testing/trials started.

The CDC has been awful in how they communicate this stuff. You need to provide direct rationale instead of 'It's safe!'.

When the full authorization comes through for Pfizer and Moderna, then new reasons not to take it will come up, no doubt.

Now excuse me while I pause to pry this spoon off of my face*.

*My favorite part of that clip: all the people in the crowd nodding their heads in full agreement. JFC.
Click to expand...

CDC communication certainly hasn’t helped. A little more disclosure of the ‘why’ of taking the steps they did would’ve helped.

The mask guidance lifting seemed a little scattershot on the surface, but I think the rationale was they wanted to provide an additional incentive to getting the vaccine. If you’ve got your shots, you can resume everything you want to do without having to fret.

They had to wait a bit before issuing this so people would get the shot, and they feel more confident the vaccines were working the way they hoped (and they are).

While I don’t completely trust the honor system, it is a different feeling knowing you’re protected compared to a year ago; ditching the mask has been nice and brought a feeling of true normalcy.

If they want to motivate more people to get the shots, they need to bring more awareness to the long haul COVID patients. Even young people who had mild symptoms are dealing with fatigue, brain fog, neurological stuff, etc. You’d think the risk of long term issues could be a good motivator for younger adults that are hesitant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cysmiley, zcecsch, Aclone and 1 other person
Cloneon said:
Hmmm. I've watched this closely since its inception. A couple of things concerned me from the start.
First, the erratic messages by the CDC and WHO. They flip flopped so often I started to not know what to believe. Even today, perusing the CDC site, it's amazing how many non definitive verbs are used (eg could, can, may, maybe) vs definite (will).
Then, there's this simple fact that in 1 year we came up with a novel vaccine for a disease which can't officially be classified as a virus because it can't be modeled as such. Even then, we can come up with an RNA based treatment in 1 year, but for some reason can't make better progress on cancer in over 50. Interesting.
Then there's the reason of why are tests only 90% accurate? Looking into that bares the bones of this whole thing. And, then the 'radical' adjustment (significantly lowering the amplification rate) to the test by the WHO after Biden was elected. I welcome anyone disproving that because, very honestly, all I'm seeking is the truth. That lower amplification rate, coincidently timed around the increase of the vaccination, dramatically alters ALL statistics. For if this level were 'before' the vaccine, we wouldn't have been scared by the sheer numbers. But, since it's after, it's absolutely wonderful how well the vaccine is doing (sarcasm).
And, then there's this: the vaccine prevents you from getting sick, but does not prevent you from contracting the disease. And since that's the case, why are we allowing masks to come off?
Ok, all that aside, I do NOT blame anyone for taking the vaccine. After all, per government influence it's the only way to get back to normal. Like it or not, I understand that's where we are at. And people have a right to do with their bodies what they'd like.
Be very clear. I'm NOT a conspiracy type of person. But, there are way too many questions to start forcing a vaccine into people who are patiently waiting for more definitive (see 'testing' ambiguity above for measure of 'definitive') results.
Click to expand...
First point, it's a novel virus, this means the world had never seen it before, so the CDC is constantly evolving as they learn more about it. Call it flip-flopping or whatever but as time goes on we learn more about it.

2nd, I dont know from your post if you are anti-vax, but this is how you get rid of diseases. I swear some people would rather live in a world full of smallpox, measles, and the plague rather than get a simple shot, all because they watched a YouTube video.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: zcecsch, NWICY, Cyched and 2 others
Cyched said:
The mask guidance lifting seemed a little scattershot on the surface, but I think the rationale was they wanted to provide an additional incentive to getting the vaccine. If you’ve got your shots, you can resume everything you want to do without having to fret.
Click to expand...
Alas, I don’t think this is working quite the way they’d hoped. I have a friend who simply ditched her mask without getting vaccinated. Then when her hair stylist asked her to either wear a mask or show her vaccine card, she threw a fit and left.

She claimed it was a matter of “privacy”. I told her the stylist was just trying to protect herself.

My friend has asthma, so I have no idea why she refuses to get the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ29
jereseib said:
First point, it's a novel virus, this means the world had never seen it before, so the CDC is constantly evolving as they learn more about it. Call it flip-flopping or whatever but as time goes on we learn more about it.

2nd, I dont know from your post if you are anti-vax, but this is how you get rid of diseases. I swear some people would rather live in a world full of smallpox, measles, and the plague rather than get a simple shot, all because they watched a YouTube video.
Click to expand...
Your reply insinuates a couple of things. First, 'novel' implies a lot longer to come up with a 'vaccine', but as luck would have it (sarcasm), we have multiple companies coming up with multiple vaccines in less than a year. Don't you find that a bit unusual?
Also, per your first comment 'time goes on we learn more about it': doesn't that correlate to the vaccine as well? In other words, per your words, couldn't our rush to introduce it conveniently 'ignore' the negative repercussions of it? Again, one 'novel' begets another.
Per your second comment: 'isn't this how we get rid of diseases?'. Not sure what you mean by 'this'. But, let's assume you meant 'the process'. I'd agree, but there's so much 'novel' about this that the scientific community resorted to 'novel' research, experimentation, and testing. Which again supports a 'patient' approach. And, your comparison to 'smallpox, measles and the plague' is completely void of a correlation to Covid 19 as none of those are in the same camp. May I suggest you read up on the 'control group' they used for the small pox vaccine? The losses there were catastrophic. But, 'yes', when the disease is 'truly' a 'virus', the method for control and eradication is a well defined procedure (which Covid research did NOT follow).
And, finally, to clear up your confusion. I'm in neither the vax or anti-vax camp, but rather the "I'd feel safer assuming the statistical risk [especially since the amplification for testing positive was so dramatically dropped] of Covid 19 vs the risk of long term consequence of a vaccine where the 'world' is the control group." And, that's me saying it despite being in the comorbidity group.
And, for what it's worth, my personality is very simple: no matter whom I hear something from, if I feel it 'sounds' excessive, I divide it in half. If it's still excessive, I start diving into the research. There's so much about this whole thing that fell into that category. Accordingly, I've watched dozens of videos, objectively review the CDC website(s) and their data for anomalies (for which there were enormous gaps) at least bi-weekly, and stay abreast of all news. Especially, the propaganda which is relays incorrect information.
I, truly, hope everyone who is vaccinated or is not yet vaccinated or even chooses not to be vaccinated stays safe and happy.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Ozclone
Aclone said:
Alas, I don’t think this is working quite the way they’d hoped. I have a friend who simply ditched her mask without getting vaccinated. Then when her hair stylist asked her to either wear a mask or show her vaccine card, she threw a fit and left.

She claimed it was a matter of “privacy”. I told her the stylist was just trying to protect herself.

My friend has asthma, so I have no idea why she refuses to get the vaccine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said earlier, I don’t fully trust the honor system.

But in general, the people who got their shots when available are the ones who did what was asked of us over the past year and took the proper precautions. I think it’s fine to “reward” them for taking this step.

Sucks to hear about your friend, but we’re at the point where if she gets sick and has serious complications, she has no one to blame but herself.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aclone
Cloneon said:
Your reply insinuates a couple of things. First, 'novel' implies a lot longer to come up with a 'vaccine', but as luck would have it (sarcasm), we have multiple companies coming up with multiple vaccines in less than a year. Don't you find that a bit unusual?
Also, per your first comment 'time goes on we learn more about it': doesn't that correlate to the vaccine as well? In other words, per your words, couldn't our rush to introduce it conveniently 'ignore' the negative repercussions of it? Again, one 'novel' begets another.
Per your second comment: 'isn't this how we get rid of diseases?'. Not sure what you mean by 'this'. But, let's assume you meant 'the process'. I'd agree, but there's so much 'novel' about this that the scientific community resorted to 'novel' research, experimentation, and testing. Which again supports a 'patient' approach. And, your comparison to 'smallpox, measles and the plague' is completely void of a correlation to Covid 19 as none of those are in the same camp. May I suggest you read up on the 'control group' they used for the small pox vaccine? The losses there were catastrophic. But, 'yes', when the disease is 'truly' a 'virus', the method for control and eradication is a well defined procedure (which Covid research did NOT follow).
And, finally, to clear up your confusion. I'm in neither the vax or anti-vax camp, but rather the "I'd feel safer assuming the statistical risk [especially since the amplification for testing positive was so dramatically dropped] of Covid 19 vs the risk of long term consequence of a vaccine where the 'world' is the control group." And, that's me saying it despite being in the comorbidity group.
And, for what it's worth, my personality is very simple: no matter whom I hear something from, if I feel it 'sounds' excessive, I divide it in half. If it's still excessive, I start diving into the research. There's so much about this whole thing that fell into that category. Accordingly, I've watched dozens of videos, objectively review the CDC website(s) and their data for anomalies (for which there were enormous gaps) at least bi-weekly, and stay abreast of all news. Especially, the propaganda which is relays incorrect information.
I, truly, hope everyone who is vaccinated or is not yet vaccinated or even chooses not to be vaccinated stays safe and happy.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't surprise me that multiple companies had vaccines with a couple months. They had its RNA sequenced within a few days after it was discovered. This is 2021, they have the technology to make quick vaccines, the longest phase of the development is testing to make sure it works and it's safe.
 
MJ271 said:
I'm curious what you mean by this. Just checking, do you know what a control group is?
Click to expand...
Yes. I do. That's a group you can give the virus to or a group that IS infected with the virus. So, that you can effectively (with placebos) establish a confidence level of 'transfer', 'infection', and 'consequence'. Therein lies the rub. They can't even 'give' this virus to you. And, further, yet, the 'test' is so flawed they can't even guarantee, statistically you're absolutely infected. So, may I ask you; how did they establish a control group?
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Ozclone, alarson, cysmiley and 1 other person
werdnamanhill said:
move this thread to the cave
Click to expand...
Yes. That has been brought to my attention. I am truly sorry for my post. I thought, because the vaccine was being discussed here, that it was a kosher thread. To honor the integrity of this thread, I will no longer comment here. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 
This whole debate reminds me of something attributed to the Baron von Steuben.

To remind a few of you about your history, von Steuben was a Prussian military officer who joined up with the Continental Army during the American Revolution. He was a veteran commander with ample experience fighting throughout Europe during the Seven Years' War. He became the drillmaster of the army during their stay at Valley Forge in the winter and spring to whip the troops up to European standards.

He's once quoted as saying something like...

"The difference between European and American troops is...
With European troops, you tell them what to do, and they do it.
With American troops, you tell them what to do and why they should do it, and they do it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aclone
Cloneon said:
Yes. I do. That's a group you can give the virus to or a group that IS infected with the virus. So, that you can effectively (with placebos) establish a confidence level of 'transfer', 'infection', and 'consequence'. Therein lies the rub. They can't even 'give' this virus to you. And, further, yet, the 'test' is so flawed they can't even guarantee, statistically you're absolutely infected. So, may I ask you; how did they establish a control group?
Click to expand...

I know you said you won't comment here again, but I just need to publicly clarify this. In a modern vaccine trial, they do not "give" anyone the virus to test vaccine efficacy. There is a treatment group and control group. The treatment group receives the vaccine, the control group receives a placebo. For the vaccine to be declared effective, they have to wait until a certain number of people have naturally been infected. Then they see if there is a statistically significant difference between the number of people infected in the control group and the number of people infected in the treatment group. That is to say, if a much larger number of people in the control group were infected than in the treatment group, we can say confidently that didn't happen just by random chance and that the vaccine is effective.

Now of course, you might worry about differences in the control group and the treatment group. But that's why there's random assignment of who gets a placebo and who gets the vaccine. And that's why vaccine trials try to get people across a range of geographies and demographics to participate.

One reason why the COVID-19 vaccine trials were able to take less time is because COVID-19 was naturally prevalent enough that people in the trial were more quickly infected, so it was more quickly apparent that the vaccine was effective. For a virus that is less prevalent, that's why it might take years for a trial.

For your concerns about testing, I can't assuage those because I don't know enough. But I can say that there are people a whole lot smarter than you or me that could probably explain it. Also, I assume that the COVID-19 tests in a vaccine trial are not the same rapid tests that you can get at a typical testing center.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: psychlones, cysmiley, madguy30 and 5 others
jereseib said:
No, it doesn't surprise me that multiple companies had vaccines with a couple months. They had its RNA sequenced within a few days after it was discovered. This is 2021, they have the technology to make quick vaccines, the longest phase of the development is testing to make sure it works and it's safe.
Click to expand...

Nobody must have told Tony this.
 
I@ST1 said:
If we don’t... it doesn’t matter IMO. The vaccine is available... if you want it.. you get it.. if you don’t... you suffer the consequences..

Open it up!
Click to expand...
Exactly this is 100% what should be the case
 
Neptune78 said:
Yes, just a bit long.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Was he supposed to know exactly how the vaccine trials were supposed to play out, especially considering a lot depended on what COVID-19 prevalence was? If he had said "I think we can have a vaccine in absolute record time and have it through trials by the end of the year," and then had been wrong and it took a year and a half, what would your reaction have been?
But your original response was about development and not the vaccine trials, which Fauci clearly did recognize as being quick.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zcecsch
MJ271 said:
I'm confused. Was he supposed to know exactly how the vaccine trials were supposed to play out, especially considering a lot depended on what COVID-19 prevalence was? If he had said "I think we can have a vaccine in absolute record time and have it through trials by the end of the year," and then had been wrong and it took a year and a half, what would your reaction have been?.....
Click to expand...

Well, fact is it didn't.

And, if Tony would have actually said just "a year and a half" it would have been one of his better predictions.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: zcecsch and alarson
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back