If you’ve chosen not to take a Covid vaccine for whatever reason(s), it may be wise to reassess occasionally.

[buckwacker]

It may surprise you to learn that the COVID vaccine had plenty of volunteers, funding, and an already established pathway, to complete the necessary trials in a shorter time frame. Fast doesn't mean rushed.

You can keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the approval timeframes WERE years and not months, and it wasn't just financial constraints. An already established pathway huh?

 

[mbills2223]

You can keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the approval timeframes WERE years and not months, and it wasn't just financial constraints. An already established pathway huh?

Yes. EUA, compassionate use, orphan drug, fast track...all forms of pathways that have existed long before COVID.

 

[JCSR]

Is 700k deaths in 18 months acceptable for a virus that supposedly isn't that serious?

See, I can do that too!

Oh or maybe they counted any death as a vaccine death! Or is that line only permitted for use with COVID itself?

 

[mbills2223]

View attachment 170331

Dude the irony is too much. That was 100% the point I was making there champ.

 

[JCSR]

Dude the irony is too much. That was 100% the point I was making there champ.

My question was, is 1200 deaths acceptable for newly introduced vaccine? I didn't take that many to pull the early polio vaccine.

 

[buckwacker]

Yes. EUA, compassionate use, orphan drug, fast track...all forms of pathways that have existed long before COVID.

A covid Pfizer vax reportedly recieved FDA approval in months. A brand new experimental vaccination technology approved in the shortest timesapan for any vaccination ever. Sign me up.

 

[mbills2223]

My question was, is 1200 deaths acceptable for newly introduced vaccine? I didn't take that many to pull the early polio vaccine.

Which wasn't what was bring discussed. Hence my return strawman.

 

[mbills2223]

A covid Pfizer vax reportedly recieved FDA approval in months. A brand new experimental vaccination technology approved in the shortest timesapan for any vaccination ever. Sign me up.

Are you familiar with how many trial participants were in on the last vaccine approval prior to COVID? Do you think a vaccine requires 15 years of data to be approved as safe and effective? That's not how it works.

 

[JCSR]

How about it's gross ineffectiveness at stopping the spread or preventing infection? What about a plethora of adverse affects, including death?

But hell, COVID doesn't impact kids and you personally gave the jab to your six year olds. Future could look VERY bleak for you @mbills2223...long term effects on this are unknown...

Remember this post that got you all lit up? It was being discussed

 

[mbills2223]

Remember this post that got you all lit up? It was being discussed

Remember the post immediately following that where I said I was not going down that road?

 

[buckwacker]

Are you familiar with how many trial participants were in on the last vaccine approval prior to COVID? Do you think a vaccine requires 15 years of data to be approved as safe and effective? That's not how it works.

I don't know, maybe if we'd have had an actual full set of trials we'd have known that it doesn't prevent covid like we were told it would, or it doesn't prevent transmission like we were told it would. Or do you think that was in the trial data and they covered it up? What else don't we know about this stuff that was rushed into arms the world over?

 

[Alpo]

View attachment 170331

Points awarded to mbills on this play. He's right and you are deflecting by claiming deflection.

Only works among those in the cheap seats.

 

[mbills2223]

I don't know, maybe if we'd have had an actual full set of trials we'd have known that it doesn't prevent covid like we were told it would, or it doesn't prevent transmission like we were told it would. Or do you think that was in the trial data and they covered it up? What else don't we know about this stuff that was rushed into arms the world over?

We have multiple full sets of data. Efficacy was in the data. Anyone who thought that in a population without 100% vaccination that vaccinated would not be able to transmit had their heads in the sand, that's well known to be the case with most vaccines.

 

[JCSR]

Remember the post immediately following that where I said I was not going down that road?

You don't get to make that call and stay in this thread.

Just for the record..... in 1955 10 deaths in a month was enough to shut the program down. Today 1200 in 3 months is not. That must be science that my 7th grade comprehension will not let me understand.

In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

 

[mbills2223]

You don't get to make that call and stay in this thread.

Just for the record..... in 1955 10 deaths in a month was enough to shut the program down. Today 1200 in 3 months is not. That must be science that my 7th grade comprehension will not let me understand.

In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

Sure I do. I responded specifically to a different comment on a different facet. Are you the thread discussion police? Do I need to go back and respond to every single comment in this thread or just the ones you like? Send me a list of post numbers sorted by length and I will send you a draft of my responses for review by EOD Monday.

 

[JCSR]

Sure I do. I responded specifically to a different comment on a different facet. Are you the thread discussion police? Do I need to go back and respond to every single comment in this thread or just the ones you like? Send me a list of post numbers sorted by length and I will send you a draft of my responses for review by EOD Monday

You are supposed to be the smart one here. I would very much like you to answer. Is 1200 deaths acceptable now when 10 wasn't in 1955. Seems like a legit question to me.

 

[mbills2223]

You are supposed to be the smart one here. I would very much like you to answer. Is 1200 deaths acceptable now when 10 wasn't in 1955. Seems like a legit question to me.

As I said, are 700k deaths in 18 months acceptable? Seems like a legit question to me.

 

[phylodog]

We have multiple full sets of data. Efficacy was in the data. Anyone who thought that in a population without 100% vaccination that vaccinated would not be able to transmit had their heads in the sand, that's well known to be the case with most vaccines.

How does a vaccine which does not prevent the spread of a virus magically prevent the spread of that same virus when there has been 100% vaccination?

 

[JCSR]

Once again.............

 

[mbills2223]

Once again.............

View attachment 170333

You really, truly don't see the irony here.

You keep asking the same ridiculous question hoping for your big gotcha moment. No I'm not okay with any death, who would say yes to that?!?! I get upset when a rando in the pharmacy tells me their dog died for gods sake. I'm giving you the same ridiculous question back and I'm the one using a strawman?

Edited to remove my unnecessary ad hominem and language.

How does a vaccine which does not prevent the spread of a virus magically prevent the spread of that same virus when there has been 100% vaccination?

I'm not saying with a certainty that it would, but I'm saying that's the only time it might. But to somewhat answer, you can transmit without infection, so theoretically if everyone were vaccinated the R would drop below 1 and the virus would burn out. I'm not saying that would absolutely happen, but that is how a vaccine that wasn't 100% effective could do it.