8 ms·

> but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me. That's how vaccines work. > This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flir

• giantg2 6y ago
  "That's how vaccines work." Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55. "Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us." But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.
  • yokaze 6y ago
    > Not all vaccines are given to all groups. "Not all" does not counter the general case made. The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease. That's how we managed to eradicate Smallpox, and in a lot of countries Polio, Measles, Rubella,... Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others. > But more time and data can benefit the researchers. More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations. I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.
    • giantg2 6y ago
      "The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease." That's not entirely true either. You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief. You don't need the entire population to be vaccinated. Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc). "Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others." It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding. "More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations." Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines. "I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here." Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?
      • yokaze 5y ago
        > You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief Thanks for the personal attack. It is a simplification, I grant you that. Simplifications are not lies if they do not distort the underlying truth, they are in fact explanatory. In contrast, bringing up complications which are unrelated to the matter at hand are rhetorical diversions. > That's not entirely true either. > Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc). All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic. > It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding. Again, thanks for diverting from the actual point with a personal attack. How does any of it relate to the topic (the diseases discussed) at hand in at best a hypothetical manner? > Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. > At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I do not see how that should make anything better. To expand on that topic: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologists-warn-mutations-could-render-current-covid-vaccines https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologist... > I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines. True, vaccinating the whole population is not possible. That doesn't stop it from being a goal. Where it isn't possible, it isn't possible. The research on vaccinating children is already being done. Yes, we do not _need_ x-nines for getting herd immunity. But herd immunity and the percentage are an oversimplification themselves of what, as you correctly put it, is a complicated topic. > > I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here. > Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. I was expressing here a personal opinion, not stating a fact. But let's get more to the factual point: I do not see how researchers "gain time" by us doing nothing. Time simply passes. All _I_ hear from researchers is expressing the urgency in taking measures: Quarantines, lock-downs, vaccination programs, discontent about stopping the use of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, against vaccine nationalism, etc... Arguing against the vaccination program, I only heard from a single guy from the Netherlands. I think, I have substantiated my claim with the prior link with the epidemiologists urging speed. Can you do the same with your claim, and find me an association/group of virologists, immunologists, or epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions? > If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get? I totally agree, they should be informed. I think, it would be much better, when they can choose, which vaccine they get. (I would get the AstraZeneca/Oxford without a heart-beat, if that means I could get it now. And no, I do not fear to get the disease myself). I think, the key to get vaccination rates up is to make vaccination as attractive as possible. Not being transparent about the risks is causing distrust, which does the contrary. I am undecided about mandatory vaccinations. When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision. If 30% of the population doesn't want to get vaccinated, then it means that either my freedom to go to a restaurant, cinema, etc... will have to stay restricted, or people with the bad luck of poor health or genetics will suffer from the whole situation even more. Hopefully, working more on improving the carrot rather than the stick will change things.