3 ms·

Are they so exhaustive they can predict side-effects which take years or decades to manifest?

by svrb 6y ago

thehappypm 6y ago
No, of course not. Society will take that risk, though. The pandemic is killing thousands every day.
- svrb 6y ago
  Fuck society; why do other people get to choose the risks I take? Socialized gains (this kind of vaccine doesn't primarily protect the healthy individual receiving it) and private losses at their finest. This argument is literally "it's okay to kill people as long as it's for the common good". Fuck subhuman collectivist scum who believe this. I'd have marginally more respect for a society which openly admitted this belief and acted upon it directly by strictly quarantining the infected and vulnerable; at least then they'd be evil but helping as opposed to evil and not helping.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    I get that you’re mad, but I don’t think you’re taking it out on the right people. The vaccine approval process is really rigorous, it isn’t some joke. We’re currently sitting around waiting because Pfizer is still observing, waiting for the slightest hint of a long term issue. Other vaccine candidates have been paused in the trials. Yes, the risk is nonzero. But there’s no evidence of risk at all and there will be tens of thousands of data points when the results come out.
    - svrb 6y ago
      Perhaps (and this is just a "perhaps" in search of where our beliefs diverge) I have the wrong idea not about the testing of the coronavirus vaccine - because I think I'm quite clear on the limitations of that - but rather the testing of all sorts of substances in the past which turned out to be deadly. Is this vaccine really undergoing strictly better testing than all drugs recalled in the past 50 years for serious side effects, for example? Unlike those drugs, this vaccine is being proposed for a huge proportion of the population and moreover it may be proposed for portions of the population who don't voluntarily agree to take the risks involved. It's quite one thing if a last-resort cancer drug kills 10% of people who take it and quite another thing entirely if this vaccine has long-term deleterious effects for even 0.1% of people who take it. I applaud and thank those who are willing to take these risks on a personal basis for the good of others but that is an entirely different thing than being willing to take those risks myself and a different thing again from supporting force (or even "just" ostracism) on those who are not willing.
      - thehappypm 6y ago
        In my opinion, that attitude is pretty much the definition of selfishness. If everyone takes this vaccine, the pandemic ends. You have a right to be selfish and act according to your perceived risk of the vaccine, but society doesn't have to smile on you for it, either.

Are they so exhaustive they can predict side-effects which take years or decades to manifest?

by svrb 6y ago

Are they so exhaustive they can predict side-effects which take years or decades to manifest?

thehappypm 6y ago

No, of course not. Society will take that risk, though. The pandemic is killing thousands every day.

svrb 6y ago
Fuck society; why do other people get to choose the risks I take? Socialized gains (this kind of vaccine doesn't primarily protect the healthy individual receiving it) and private losses at their finest. This argument is literally "it's okay to kill people as long as it's for the common good". Fuck subhuman collectivist scum who believe this. I'd have marginally more respect for a society which openly admitted this belief and acted upon it directly by strictly quarantining the infected and vulnerable; at least then they'd be evil but helping as opposed to evil and not helping.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  I get that you’re mad, but I don’t think you’re taking it out on the right people. The vaccine approval process is really rigorous, it isn’t some joke. We’re currently sitting around waiting because Pfizer is still observing, waiting for the slightest hint of a long term issue. Other vaccine candidates have been paused in the trials. Yes, the risk is nonzero. But there’s no evidence of risk at all and there will be tens of thousands of data points when the results come out.
  - svrb 6y ago
    Perhaps (and this is just a "perhaps" in search of where our beliefs diverge) I have the wrong idea not about the testing of the coronavirus vaccine - because I think I'm quite clear on the limitations of that - but rather the testing of all sorts of substances in the past which turned out to be deadly. Is this vaccine really undergoing strictly better testing than all drugs recalled in the past 50 years for serious side effects, for example? Unlike those drugs, this vaccine is being proposed for a huge proportion of the population and moreover it may be proposed for portions of the population who don't voluntarily agree to take the risks involved. It's quite one thing if a last-resort cancer drug kills 10% of people who take it and quite another thing entirely if this vaccine has long-term deleterious effects for even 0.1% of people who take it. I applaud and thank those who are willing to take these risks on a personal basis for the good of others but that is an entirely different thing than being willing to take those risks myself and a different thing again from supporting force (or even "just" ostracism) on those who are not willing.
    - thehappypm 6y ago
      In my opinion, that attitude is pretty much the definition of selfishness. If everyone takes this vaccine, the pandemic ends. You have a right to be selfish and act according to your perceived risk of the vaccine, but society doesn't have to smile on you for it, either.