4 ms·

Weird - I wonder what they were thinking? If they thought that it was worth ruining them, they must have believe that they work.

by zepto 6y ago

zamadatix 6y ago
That's just one possibility, they could also have destroyed them intentionally because of a conspiracy about the vaccine being bad for people. We won't know without more information.
gilrain 6y ago
Anti-vaxxers don't think they don't work; they believe (without evidence) that they are more harmful than helpful.
- Felony_Fred 6y ago
  Many people also believe (without enough evidence) that they are more helpful than harmful. If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    For those wondering, this entire account consists of argument about Covid. Make of that what you will. Edit: I do not normally go snooping through account history, however, for a new account that is arguing about Covid, I make exceptions.
    - Felony_Fred 6y ago
      > this entire account consists of argument about Covid More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in. Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
      - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
        From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration: "The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection. [...] the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. [...] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" Enough said
  - arilotter 6y ago
    If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
    - Felony_Fred 6y ago
      > If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection. I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
      - jmartrican 6y ago
        So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
        Felony_Fred 6y ago
        Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
almost_usual 6y ago
Doesn’t really matter what they were thinking. What matters is the plan of how the vaccines are delivered, stored, distributed, and monitored. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and the execution of the plan needs to account for that.
- zepto 6y ago
  By that logic the plan was fine then. 500 doses out of 2.79 million is an insignificant loss. It’s still interesting to wonder what they were thinking, since it might be informative about how to make the plan better, or about risks that have not yet materialized.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    Designing solutions based on motivation is a waste of time and not scalable.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Can you give an example of a single solution that isn’t based on motivation?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - almost_usual 6y ago
        There are problems and there are solutions. Making sure the vaccine is monitored and distributed correctly is a problem to be solved. The motivation as to why a someone wouldn’t want that is a thought experiment.
        zepto 6y ago
        Making sure the vaccine is monitored and distributed correctly, depends on finding people who are motivated to do so, does it not?

Weird - I wonder what they were thinking? If they thought that it was worth ruining them, they must have believe that they work.

by zepto 6y ago

Weird - I wonder what they were thinking? If they thought that it was worth ruining them, they must have believe that they work.

zamadatix 6y ago

That's just one possibility, they could also have destroyed them intentionally because of a conspiracy about the vaccine being bad for people. We won't know without more information.

gilrain 6y ago

Anti-vaxxers don't think they don't work; they believe (without evidence) that they are more harmful than helpful.

Felony_Fred 6y ago
Many people also believe (without enough evidence) that they are more helpful than harmful. If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.
- Shared404 6y ago
  For those wondering, this entire account consists of argument about Covid. Make of that what you will. Edit: I do not normally go snooping through account history, however, for a new account that is arguing about Covid, I make exceptions.
  - Felony_Fred 6y ago
    > this entire account consists of argument about Covid More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in. Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
    - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
      From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration: "The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection. [...] the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. [...] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" Enough said
- arilotter 6y ago
  If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
  - Felony_Fred 6y ago
    > If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection. I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
    - jmartrican 6y ago
      So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
      - Felony_Fred 6y ago
        Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).

almost_usual 6y ago

Doesn’t really matter what they were thinking. What matters is the plan of how the vaccines are delivered, stored, distributed, and monitored. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and the execution of the plan needs to account for that.

zepto 6y ago
By that logic the plan was fine then. 500 doses out of 2.79 million is an insignificant loss. It’s still interesting to wonder what they were thinking, since it might be informative about how to make the plan better, or about risks that have not yet materialized.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  Designing solutions based on motivation is a waste of time and not scalable.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Can you give an example of a single solution that isn’t based on motivation?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - almost_usual 6y ago
      There are problems and there are solutions. Making sure the vaccine is monitored and distributed correctly is a problem to be solved. The motivation as to why a someone wouldn’t want that is a thought experiment.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Making sure the vaccine is monitored and distributed correctly, depends on finding people who are motivated to do so, does it not?